.

.
fir.
fig

 

I .22
(3".
far; gnu

. In.

1.5
n

. .. A I.
.n auras“: .1
233.2,...11

$31!)»:

 

 

 

 

 

 

ill: 1
.u NJ.» H

m? :43?

3 ‘ ‘ ‘ . V . . .21..

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University This is to certify that the

 

 

dissertation entitled

MEDIA EXPOSURE'S IMPACT ON LATITUDE OF MORAL
SANCTION FOR VIOLENT REPRISAL: THE ROLE OF
DISPOSITION AND MOTIVE

presented by.
KENNETH A. LACHLAN

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph. degree In Communication

Km ZW

MaWProiessor’ 5 Signature

 

November 17, 2003

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATgthE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

[if

0 .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65-p. 15

MEDIA EXPOSURE’S IMPACT ON LATITUDE OF MORAL SANCTION FOR
VIOLENT REPRISAL: THE ROLE OF DISPOSITION AND MOTIVE

By

Kenneth A. Lachlan

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSPHY
Department of Communication

2003

ABSTRACT

MEDIA EXPOSURE’S IMPACT ON LATITUDE OF MORAL SANCT ION FOR
VIOLENT REPRISAL: THE ROLE OF DISPOSITION AND MOTIVE

By

Kenneth A. Lachlan

Studies of media violence suggest that exposure to violent television can increase
the approval and/or acceptance of aggressive behavior in real life (Paik & Comstock,
1994). Moreover, several experimental studies show evidence that the presentation of
violence as justified increases the likelihood of resultant aggression (Berkowitz & Geen,
1967; Berkowitz & Powers, 1979; Meyer, 1972), while exposure to unjustified violence
may actually reduce aggressive tendencies (Geen, 1981). However, conceptual ambiguity
remains concerning the characteristic features delineating justified from unjustified
violence, the relationship of perceived justification to specific attributes of the source and
target of violence, and the underlying psychological processes responsible for subsequent
aggressive behavior.

‘ The current research begins by developing a logic explicating processes through
which appraisals of justification are based on equal exchanges, moderated by
dispositional and motivational concerns. Based on predictions from this logic, 225
college students were exposed to a violent film clip, using a fully crossed 3 X 3 design
comparing responses to violence committed by liked, disliked, and neutral perpetrators
with sanctioned, unsanctioned, or unknown motives. The results indicate that violence
committed by liked characters, regardless of the apparent motive, can facilitate hostile

responses and perhaps impact attitudes that govern habitual aggressive behavior.

Additionally, random acts of violence, those which contain no clear dispositional or
motivational considerations, may also be harmful, as they seem to be met with great
approval. In contrast to predictions, enjoyment of the observed film clip was in no way
related to perpetrator disposition or motive for aggression. Finally, the specific
combination of liked characters committing aggressive acts for reasons that are
normatively unacceptable may be particularly problematic in its contribution to attitudes
that facilitate aggressive behavioral. These results are discussed in terms of the
availability of such socially problematic content, its potential long term effects on
viewers, and the need for further research investigating the roles played by disposition

and motive in moderating the effect of media violence on moral reasoning.

Copyright by
KENNETH A. LACHLAN
2003

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation could not have been completed without the help of several
people. Particular gratitude goes to my advisor, Ron Tamborini, whose patience,
teaching, criticism, work ethic, and encouragement have gone far beyond the call of duty
and are very deeply appreciated.

Appreciation is also extended to the members of my doctoral committee, Bradley
Greenberg, Chuck Atkin, and Stacy Smith. In addition to their helpful methodological
and theoretical insights on this particular project, they have been wonderful colleagues
and a joy to work with over the past several years.

I am also indebted to several of my student colleagues for their assistance in the
completion of this project. In particular, Paul Skalski, David Westerman, and Jeff Davis
have all played important roles in the larger program of research within which this
dissertation may be placed. Thanks also to J. Pete Blair for his assistance in editing the
stimulus materials used in the current study.

Finally, I extend my deepest thanks to my parents, Alan and Margaret Lachlan.
Without their love, friendship, advice, and endless support, none of this would have been

possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ viii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................ ix
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... I
Concern over Justified Violence ................................................................... 2
Conceptually Defining Justified Violence .................................................... 5
Cognitive Consistency and Enjoyment of Crime Drama ........................... 10
Motivational and Dispositional Factors in Research on
Justified Media Violence ............................................................................. 12
Problems of Conceptual Ambiguity in Prior Research on
Justified Media Violence ............................................................................. 14
Problem Statement ....................................................................................... 16
METHOD .......................................................................................................... 21
Participants ................................................................................................... 21
Procedures .................................................................................................... 21
Induction Checks ......................................................................................... 23
Experimental Materials ............................................................................... 28
Measures ...................................................................................................... 31
RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 38
Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................... 38
Congruity and Acceptance of Observed Violence ..................................... 41
Motives for Violence and Attitudes Toward Perpetrators ......................... 42
Motives for Violence and Enjoyment of Film ............................................ 42
Incongruity and the Acceptance of Observed Violence ............................. 43
Congruity, Incongruity, and Subsequent Moral Appraisals ....................... 44
Incongruity, Enjoyment, and Attitudes Toward Characters ....................... 50
Congruity, Enjoyment, and Attitudes Toward Characters ......................... 51
DISCUSSION .................................................................................................... 52
Incongruity between Disposition and Motive ............................................ 53
Congruity between Disposition and Motive ............................................... 56
Hypothesized Outcomes .............................................................................. 57
Post Hoe Analyses ....................................................................................... 59
Limitations ................................................................................................... 67
Conclusions .................................................................................................. 68
Further Research .......................................................................................... 71
Summary ...................................................................................................... 74

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

APPENDICES ................................................................................................... 76

REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 105

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Dependent Variable Means by Condition ......................................................... 40

Latitude of Acceptance for Violence in Written
Scenario Following Portrayals of Film Violence with

Incongruous, Neutral, or Congruous Disposition-Motive Sets ........................ 49
Marginal Means for Perpetrator Likeability ..................................................... 62
Corrected Means for Target Likeability ............................................................ 64

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Target Likeability by Perpetrator Disposition and Motive ............................... 63

Most Acceptable Reprisal by Perpetrator Disposition and Motive .................. 66

ix

Media Exposure’s Impact on Latitude of Moral Sanction for Violent Reprisal: the
Role of Disposition and Motive for Violence

Studies of media violence suggest that exposure to violent television can increase
the approval and/or acceptance of aggressive behavior in real life (Paik & Comstock,
1994). Moreover, several experimental studies show evidence that the presentation of
violence as justified increases the likelihood of resultant aggression (Berkowitz & Geen,
1967; Berkowitz & Powers, 1979; Meyer, 1972), while exposure to unjustified violence
may actually reduce aggressive tendencies (Geen, 1981). This line of research has been
interpreted to suggest that perceived justification moderates the relationship between
exposure to television violence and viewer aggression.

While evidence from these prior investigations supports claims that justified
media violence impacts resultant aggressive behavior, conceptual ambiguity remains
concerning characteristic features delineating justified from unjustified violence, the
relationship of perceived justification to specific attributes of the source and target of
violence, and the underlying psychological processes responsible for subsequent
aggressive behavior. Moreover, issues concerning the extent to which the features of
justified violence in early experimental research are represented in the content of
televised violence today raise questions concerning the ecological validity of earlier
research.

This paper begins by developing a logic explicating processes through which
content features of justified violence moderate the impact of exposure to television
violence on aggressive behavior. Based on predictions from this logic, a study is

developed to evaluate shifts in attitudes toward violence that may occur through repeated

exposure, with the understanding that attitudinal shifts may predict aggressive behavior.
Central in this regard is an attempt to differentiate specific attributes of justification
which, though confounded in previous media research, are taken as evidence that
justification shapes the impact of violence on subsequent aggression. Specifically, this
study considers the media cues associated with motivations for violence and with
dispositions toward victims and perpetrators in an attempt to isolate their potential impact
on attitudes facilitating aggression.
Concern over justified violence

Previous research on television content has identified a number of contextual
features associated with the representation of violence that contribute to its influence on
viewer aggression. One critical feature identified by this research is the presence of
information signifying justification for acts of violence. Research in this area suggests
that when acts of violence are presented as being justified they pose a more serious risk to
audiences by reducing inhibitions that prevent aggressive behavior, while unjustified acts
of violence do not appear to have the same effect on viewer aggression and may even
inhibit aggressive response (Berkowitz, 1962; Geen 1981). Provoked subjects who have
seen justified violence are more likely to demonstrate heightened aggression both in their
attitudes toward others (Berkowitz & Rawlings, 1963) and in actual behaviors such as the
administration of shocks to a confederate (Berkowitz & Geen, 1967; Hoyt, 1970).

While the results of work in this area have proven invaluable by helping to
identify the critical role played by justification cues in determining the outcomes from
exposure to media violence, most of this research has been based on a narrow

conceptualization of justification that imposes limits to our understanding of its potential

influence. Across this research violent acts are considered justified only when they are
committed by liked protagonists who have experienced some previous provocation or are
acting in self-defense. Correspondingly, unjustified acts of violence are those committed
by disliked perpetrators and those committed without any apparent provocation or need
for self—defense. As such, justified acts are always committed by characters toward which
the audience has a positive disposition, while unjustified violence is always committed by
those toward which the audience has a negative disposition.

The limitations imposed by this conceptualization become evident when we
recognize both that it appears inconsistent with the presentation of violence in
mainstream television and that our expectations of resultant aggression may change with
a different conception. The National Television Violence Study (Wilson, et al 1997)
revealed that almost half of all acts of violence on mainstream television are portrayed as
justified, because they are committed as retaliation for a previous act or out of self-
defense. Moreover, they found that most violent acts on television are committed by
antagonistic characters. Taken together, if most violence is committed by antagonists and
half of this is justified, it is reasonable to assume that many justified violent acts on
American television are committed by “bad guys.” In addition, and perhaps more
importantly, there is a strong likelihood that many unjustified acts are being committed
by protagonists. Since both of these portrayals differ considerably from the stimuli
traditionally used in experimental research on the effects of justified violence, important
gaps remain in our understanding of justification’s role in shaping the effects of exposure

to the violence found in television today.

In effect, much of the evidence differentiating the influence of justified and
unjustified violence is based on studies potentially lacking any ecologically validity to the
media’s portrayal of characteristics associated with the justification of violence. By
confounding justification with portrayals of the perpetrator as a liked protagonist,
research in this area may not only fail to accurately represent justified violence as it
appears in media, but may do so in a way that alters our expectations about the way
justified violence influences viewer behavior. While this research leads us to believe that
justification is driving subsequent aggressive behavior, the confound in existing research
prevents us from determining if the cause for resulting aggressive behavior stems from
content portraying violence as justified, content portraying violence as perpetrated by a
liked protagonist, or a combination of the two. For example, instead of concluding that
unjustified violence inhibits aggressive behavior while justified violence facilitates it,
perhaps we might find that despites its nefarious motives, even unjustified acts have a
disinhibiting effect on viewer aggression when they are committed by a liked protagonist.

This more alarming potential seems highly plausible if we use logic from
combinatorial theories on the integration of new information with prior attitudes or even
simple affective process theories on attitude formation (cf. Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) to
reason that viewers may draw associations between the desirable qualities of a liked
protagonist and the performance of unjustified violence. Perceptions of what constitutes
acceptable use of aggression may change through repeated exposure; shifting attitudes to
increasingly Iegitimizing the use of aggression under any situation. Moreover, we might
expect such shifts in the range of behaviors thought acceptable to increase the use of

aggressive behavior.

Conceptually defining justified violence

The notion of perceived justification is inherently linked to study on issues of
morality, and what one considers “right” and “wrong”. Essentially, when we say that
something is justified, we are saying that we perceive it to be morally sanctioned - it is
the right thing to do under the given circumstances. While several perspectives have been
offered in this regard, the conception of justification adopted here is based on an
understanding of moral appraisals offered by Kohlberg and others (Colby & Kohlberg.
1987).

At the most fundamental level of moral appraisal, Kohlberg (1958) asserts that
notions of justice are determined by considering whether or not the inherent qualities of a
reprisal constitute literal reciprocity or are strictly equal to the provoking act. While for
children these simple determinations can be superceded by the evaluation of some
authority figure (e.g. “it’s wrong because my Dad said it’s wrong to hit people”), absent
this authority influence, the essential feature of justification is strict equivalence. An act
of violent reprisal is just if its inherent qualities are equivalent to the violence that
preceded it, and unjust if violence in the reprisal falls below or exceeds the initiating
violent act.

Notably, there is no consideration of actors involved or the context predicating
behavior at the most basic level of appraisal. Appraisals are made solely on the face value
of the act itself. However, many determinations of justice do not occur at primitive levels
and are considerably more complex. Kohlberg posits that more complex appraisals of
justice are moderated by consideration of the actors involved and an examination of the

circumstances surrounding the exchange. At these higher levels of complexity, judgments

based on “strict equality and literal reciprocity are modified by reference to shared norms
or to motives that indicate a good or bad person or deservingness” (Colby & Kohlberg,
1987 p. 27). In other words, most moral appraisal is made based on construal of whether
or not an act falls within a set of behaviors that we consider to be socially acknowledged
as equitable given the provocation preceding it, and this appraisal is moderated by the
observer’s disposition toward the actors involved and perception of their motives.

Justified violence and latitude of moral sanctions. While philosophers may posit
that decisions of right and wrong stem from the existence of formal moral systems
(Bentham, 1948; Kant, 1785/1922), there is reason to believe that most perceptions of
justice are not governed by strict adherence to or deviations from an exacting set of rules
prescribing specific behaviors, but are spontaneous appraisals shaped by basal reactions
to witnessed events.

Zillmann’s (2000) moral-sanction theory of delight and repugnance distinguishes
the more deliberate process of forming “moral judgments” from less contemplative
“moral sanctions.” While moral judgment can be characterized by comparatively formal
thought processes which may prescribe specific rewards and punishments for particular
acts, moral sanctions are thought of more simply as a “readiness to accept, in moral
terms,” the observed outcomes of events (p. 59). In this sense, moral sanctions include
any and all behaviors one is ready to accept. Thus, instead of a clear-cut judgment of an
act’s morality based on its deviating from specific retribution called for by an exacting
moral code, the comparatively impulsive “readiness to accept” nature of moral—sanction
appraisals allows for broader latitude in determining which acts are deemed morally

acceptable or justified. Indeed, it seems likely that this readiness-to-accept results in most

appraisals of justification being governed by a somewhat vaguely-defined “latitude of
moral sanction,” with relatively few appraisals resulting from the type of deliberate
contemplation characteristic of moral judgment.

Attitude structures and sanctioning violence. The understanding of attitude
structures adopted for the current study is based on research by Sherif and others (Sherif,
1962; Sherif & Sherif, 1965). While Sherif’s theorizing on attitude change has been
questioned for its inability to accurately predict, his thinking on attitude structure is
considered a useful approach to observing and understanding the composition of attitude
judgments (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). This model posits that attitudes held by individuals
toward a person, place, event, or object are generally not limited to one position, but
instead encompass a range of positions held by the observer to be acceptable.

Fundamentally, Sherif asserts that attitudes exist along a continuum that
represents different points of view toward an issue or object. Attitudes can be understood
as the range of positions along this continuum that people find acceptable, unacceptable,
or neither. These different ranges are called the latitudes of acceptance, rejection, and
noncommitment. The latitude of acceptance contains the individual’s most preferred
position along with others deemed acceptable. Similarly, the latitude of rejection includes
the position one finds most objectionable, as well others deemed objectionable. Positions
found neither acceptable of objectionable form the latitude of noncommitment.

This understanding of attitudes works well with the application of Kohlberg’s
model of moral reasoning adopted in the current study. In this model, the appraisal of an
act as morally just is based on the perception of equality, moderated by disposition

towards the actors involved and perceived motives for the behavior. Here, equality can be

thought of as those positions falling within as a certain range of acceptable behaviors
under given circumstances of disposition and motivation. The latitude is expected to
move up and down along the continuum contingent upon dispositional and motivational
concerns. For example, the extent of violent response within the latitude of acceptance
may increase if the target is disliked, and reprisal is motivated by socially sanctioned
reason. By contrast, when violent reprisal comes from by a disliked perpetrator with
unsanctioned cause, we may expect the amount of violence within the latitude of
acceptance to diminish.

Understood this way, the perception of justified violence can be conceptually
defined as an appraisal of violent retribution based on its relationship to the normatively
determined range of retribution acts an individual deems morally acceptable — or one’s
latitude of moral sanctions for violent reprisal. Without consideration of the social
validation processes that might shape the content and boundaries of an individual’s
latitude of moral sanctions, the approach to understanding justice in terms of a range of
acts that are deemed morally acceptable can be traced to work on Balance Theory
(Heider, 1958).

Cognitive consistency, justice. and latitude-of-moral-sanction. Heider (1958)
argues that humans prefer situations in which relative harmony exists between their
feelings toward an object (i.e., person or event) and circumstances surrounding the object
- a condition called cognitive consistency. Disharmony is an unpleasant state that
motivates people to act in ways that restore cognitive consistency by producing
circumstances consistent with their disposition, or a disposition consistent with the

situation. For example, people hearing a message with which they strongly disagree from

somebody whom they respect may attribute more credibility toward the message in order
to create harmony between their perceptions of the message source and the events under
consideration. Similarly, they may change their attitude toward the speaker to consider
him/her less credible. In either case, people are fundamentally motivated to create a
balanced cognitive state.

Heider explicates justice in terms of the cognitive consistency between our
thoughts about observed events and people involved in the events. Justice is perceived
when there is a match between the outcome of events observed and the latitude of events
considered appropriate by the observer given the person and the circumstances involved.
Notably, the critical circumstantial features in most perceptions include dispositions
toward the person under observation or the situation in which the person is involved. In
terms that foreshadow Zillmann’s (2000) discussion of disposition’s role in forming
moral sanctions, Heider (1958) argues that, on the whole, harmony and perceived justice
occur when observers see reward, happiness, and fortune fall upon those who are judged
as “good,” and correspondingly when ill fortune, punishment, and discord fall upon those
who are judged as evil. If any of these outcomes were observed, they would fall within
the observer’s latitude of appropriate outcomes and be experienced as harmonious states.
Such harmonious states are seen as instances of justice, and disharmonious states are
considered unjustified.

Applied to the study of media violence, the principle behind Heider’s work
suggests that if viewers experience incongruence between their attitude toward a
perpetrator and their attitude toward an act of reprisal (comprised of the specific violent

act and its associated motive) this incongruence might motivate a viewer to change their

attitude toward the actor, their attitude toward the act itself, or both. This logic suggests
that if viewers draw associations between the desirable qualities of a liked protagonist
and an act of violent reprisal that might otherwise be considered unacceptable, attitude
change should occur to restore a balanced state. In addition to the potential for a decrease
in one’s like for the perpetrator, we might expect an increase in the level of violent
reprisal thought acceptable given the motive. This important outcome is in conflict with
earlier claims. While the logic here suggests that unjustified violence should increase
aggressive tendencies, due to the aforementioned confound in earlier violence research,
this form of unjustified violence was not considered in previous studies.

Cognitive consistency and enjoyment of crime drama.

While no attempts have been made to consider how incongruity in attitudes
toward reprisal acts and the perpetrators who perform them can impact the acceptability
of violence, the rationale underlying this model has been tested in research on the
enjoyment of crime drama. Raney and Bryant (2002) apply logic from work on cognitive
consistency and latitudes of moral sanction to their theoretical model of moral judgment
in crime—drama enjoyment. They assert that the evaluation of crime drama is based on
observation of a “justice sequence” comprised of some act of provocation and subsequent
retribution. Each person views a justice sequence with an idea of appropriate retribution
defined by the range of behaviors falling within their “latitude of moral sanction.” This
range is based on consideration of audience inputs (individual differences in readiness to
accept) and message inputs (content related to provocation and reprisal). According to the
model, the degree to which message inputs are consistent with audience inputs will effect

appraisal of reprisal as just or unjust. When the level of violence contained in the act of

IO

reprisal falls within the latitude of moral sanction that results from the combination of
message and audience inputs, viewers will appraise the reprisal as justified and enjoy the
observed violence.

Raney and Bryant’s (2002) discussion of audience and message inputs that impact
viewer perceptions of the justice sequence point to factors that moderate perceptions of
justified violence, a position consistent with the definition of justified violence that is
adopted for use here. In submitting that perception of justified violence is best understood
as the range in levels of violence one is ready to accept as moral, I maintain that one’s
readiness-to—accept is moderated by critical audience and message factors: the audience
member’s disposition toward perpetrator and victim, and the motivations for retribution
made implicit by the message.

Motivation and dispositional concerns can broaden or narrow the range of
behaviors one is ready to accept. In terms of disposition, we might expect that the level of
violence one considers as literal reciprocity is elevated by liking the perpetrator or
disliking the victim, while by contrast this level is lowered by disliking the perpetrator
and liking the target. Similarly, we might expect that the level of violence considered to
be equal retribution is a function of whether of not motivations for the act are perceived
to be normatively acceptable reasons for aggression. Motivations perceived to be
normatively accepted reasons for using violence should broaden the range of behaviors
one is ready to accept, while motives perceived to be outside the norms of acceptable

reasons for using violence should narrow that range of behaviors.

ll

Motivational and dispositional factors in research on justified media violence.

A cursory look at media research may leave the impression that justified violence
has been carefully explicated; however, close inspection suggests that its treatment, may
be inadequate for the development of theoretical reasoning in some areas of media
violence and aggression. By and large, though making reference to issues of morality,
this work fails to detail the role of moral appraisal identified in other literature. While
motivational and dispositional factors have been considered individually in several prior
investigations on justified media violence and aggression, previous research fails to
consider all aspects of their combined impact. Making this disentanglement even more
difficult is the fact that while conceptual definitions of justification are explicitly stated in
some studies, in others they can only be inferred from the operational features of
research.

Definitions based on motivational concerns take into account the functional use of
violence (e.g., the reason or motive for its use). For example, Felson and Ribner (1981)
explicitly comment that violence can only be justified if it is intentional, as justification
requires some sort of normative reason for an intentional action. While not stated
explicitly as the defining feature of justification, several different motivational concerns
play a clear role in representations of just and unjust behavior in other studies. Both Hoyt
(1970) as well as Geen and Stonner (1973) operationally define justified violence as an
act committed in response to a previous attack from an aggressor. Hoyt (1970) presents
conditions in which even perception of a credible threat by the perpetrator constitutes
justification for an aggressive response. By contrast, an unjust act has been characterized

as one lacking clear reason for violence (e. g. Hoyt 1970; Geen & Stonner 1973) or one

12

offering specific motivations that are normatively inadequate to justify the use of
violence, such greed (Berkowitz & Rawlings, 1963; Geen & Stonner, 1974) or the pure
enjoyment of watching someone suffer (Berkowitz & Powers, 1979).

Definitions based on simple dispositional concerns involve viewer attitudes
toward the target and perpetrator of violence, such as work by Berkowitz and Rawlings
(1963) who maintain that acts of violence are inherently just if the victim is a disliked
antagonist. In operational procedures, understandings of justification in terms of
disposition can be seen in studies by Geen (1981) and Berkowitz and Geen, (1967) who
represent justified violence as that perpetrated against an immoral scoundrel who is a
disliked and therefore, deserving of physical punishment.

Research on disposition theory (Zillmann, 1996) suggests that even beyond
simple dispositional concerns, viewers will only enjoy witnessing violent acts if the level
of the violence meets some level considered appropriate given the events that surround
the act. Audiences for the most part enjoy seeing fair and due punishment to those who
deserve it (Zillmann & Cantor, 1977). Viewers as young as seven years of age report
enjoying retributive violence that is within a range of appropriateness, but express less
enjoyment of aggressive retribution that is too severe or too mild (Zillmann & Bryant,
1975). Indeed, detail on what acts are insufficient or excessive remains vague. However,
as previously stated this notion of literal reciprocity seems crucial in the appraisal of
violence as just or unjust. Without perceived agreement between the precipitating events
and the level of violence observed, just appraisals cannot take place. Behavioral research
on the effects of justified violence has largely overlooked this critical theoretical

consideration.

l3

While most studies do not consider motivational and dispositional factors in
combination, two studies look at limited combinations of these attributes. Both Berkowitz
and Powers (1979) and Meyer (1972) combine consideration of reason with disposition to
suggest that violence against disliked antagonists are appraised as more just when they
are in retaliation for the target’s previous wrongdoing. Though they disregard some
critical combinations of motivational and dispositional concerns, their work signals that
disposition can moderate whether or not the reason is considered just.

Problems of conceptual ambiguity in prior research on justified media violence

Taken together, the above discussion on motivational and dispositional concerns
offers an understanding that depicts justified violence as an appraisal of the
appropriateness of the level of violent reprisal, or the range of behaviors we are ready to
accept as moral, moderated by dispositional concerns and evaluations of the motive for
violence. Understood in terms of one’s latitude of moral sanctions, the perception of
whether or not a particular act of violent retribution is socially appropriate is based on it
falling within a range of behaviors considered to be inherently equal to the provoking act.
While the level one is ready to accept is likely to be culturally determined, this is also
thought to be moderated by perceived motivation and dispositional concerns.

I contend that the failure of prior investigations to consider the independent and
combined impact of these factors limits our understanding of the process at work. In
previous experimental research on justified violence, dispositional and motivational
concerns are confounded with one another. All violent acts considered justified are
performed by liked protagonists, and all those considered unjustified are performed by

disliked antagonist. While this research has been interpreted to indicate that exposure to

14

justified violence facilitates subsequent aggression and unjustified violence reduces
aggression, it is conceivable that unjustified acts facilitate aggression when they are
committed by a liked protagonist. For example, while it is logical to hold that aggression
increases because showing violence as justified will disinhibit aggressive constraint, it is
also plausible that aggression increases because liked protagonists are shown enacting
aggressive behaviors.

Since prior research fails to investigate the impact of violent reprisal performed
by liked protagonists without motivations perceived as normatively accepted reasons for
aggression, it is possible that the dispositional attributes of the retaliators, and not the
motivation for violence, are responsible for the earlier observations of justified violence’s
impact on aggression. As stated above, confounds in prior investigations prevent us from
determining if the increase in aggression following exposure to justified violence stems
from content portraying violence as initiated by normatively accepted motives, content
portraying violence as perpetrated by a liked protagonist, or a combination of the two.
Since there is neither evidence nor logic to argue otherwise, I do not contest directly
earlier claims that exposure to violence with justifiable motives can facilitate aggressive
response. Instead, I modify earlier explanations by considering the role of dispositional
influence separate from its conventional association with motivates for violence. I argue
that even those acts of violence deemed unjustified by motivational criteria may facilitate
an aggressive response if performed by liked protagonists. Based on the reasoning above,
a set of hypotheses and research questions related to this research problem is offered, and

a study is proposed to investigate the issues represented in the problem statement.

15

Problem statement.

As previously stated, Balance Theory (Heider, 1958) argues that people prefer
cognitive consistency to cognitive disharmony, and will attempt to behave or appraise the
behavior of others in such a way as to restore consistency. In cases in which there is a
cognitive discrepancy between an observed social actor and the circumstances
surrounding their behavior, people will be likely to adjust their attitude toward one or the
other in order to produce a harmonious state. In this way, appraisals of the actor or the act
are equally likely to shift, as long as shifting one contributes to restoring a state of
cognitive harmony.

The impact of incongruity in observed violent reprisal. When considering
potential discrepancy between an attitude toward an observed act of violent reprisal
(composed of the act and instigating motive) and a dispositional-based attitude toward the
perpetrator of act, there are several potential cognitive outcomes. When the attitude
toward an act is positive (i.e., it is perceived as the right thing to do in the given
situations) and the attitude toward a perpetrator is negative, either the viewer’s attitude
toward the act should shift and become less positive (i.e., the violent reprisal will be
perceived less acceptable); their disposition toward the perpetrator should become less
negative, or both should occur. Similarly, when the attitude toward an act is negative and
the attitude toward a perpetrator is positive, either the viewer’s attitude toward the act
should become less negative (i.e., the violent reprisal will be perceived mgr; acceptable);
their disposition toward the perpetrator should become less positive, or both.

The logic leads us to expect change showing more positive attitudes toward

unsanctioned acts and disliked perpetrators, or more negative attitudes toward sanctioned

l6

acts and liked perpetrators. However, it is unclear how this will be represented in specific
change. While no change or change in the opposite direction clearly inconsistent with the
rationale provided, the inability of balance logic to distinguish whether or not resultant
change should occur in attitudes toward the perpetrator, the act, or both precludes the use
of specific hypotheses in favor of research questions. If we consider the potential change
in attitude structure as a shift along a continuum represented by one’s latitude of
acceptance, rejection, and non-commitment, this problem statement can be represented in
terms of the following research questions.

RQl: How does the incongruity between a negative dispositional set and
sanctioned perpetrator motives interact to moderate the acceptability of an observed
violent film?

RQ2: How does the incongruity between a positive dispositional set and
unsanctioned perpetrator motives interact to moderate the acceptability of an observed

violent film?

The impact of congruity in observed violent reprisal. When considering situations
in which cognitive consistency exists, a slightly different set of predictions occurs.
Seminal research by Jordan (1953) aimed at testing the claims of Balance theory that
balanced intra-attitudinal structures produce desirable cognitive states showed that while
balanced states were perceived as more pleasant than unbalanced states, heightened
pleasantness seemed to occur mostly when part of the balanced structure included
agreement with liked others. In terms of violent reprisal. this would be represented by the

circumstances where a liked perpetrator had sanctioned motives for the act observed.

17

Disagreement with disliked others, also a balanced structure, failed to produce the same
pleasant experience. Here again, this would be represented by cases where a disliked
perpetrator had unsanctioned motives for the act. Insko, Songer and McGarvey (1974)
argue that in conventional balance “p-o-x” attitude triads, people typically reflect on more
than the traditional three-pronged structure considered in conventional balance logic.
Critical here is their conclusion that balance only occurs in expanded structures when
there is agreement with liked others.

The interesting issue here concerns how we would expect these structures to be
represented in attitudes toward the acceptability of the observed violence. We might
argue simply that no change in attitude should be expected in cases where there is a
balanced cognitive state. In this case we should expect that initial attitudes would hold.
Acceptability of observed violence should remain constant and high when initial attitudes
are positive (i.e., when a liked perpetrator has a sanctioned motive). This is represented in
the following hypothesis.

H1: Acceptability for violent reprisal in the observed film will be higher when a
violent act is performed by a liked perpetrator with sanctioned motives, than when the
dispositions toward perpetrator and motive are neutral.

Similar logic might lead to the prediction that the acceptability of observed
violence should remain constant and low when initial attitudes are negative (i.e., a
disliked perpetrator with an unsanctioned motive). However, if initial negative attitudes
are considered unbalance and understood to create unpleasantness, we might instead
expect a shift in attitudes toward an even lower range of acceptability. Though the logic

does suggest differences when comparing a situation where the attitude toward the act’s

18

motive is negative with a situation where attitudes toward both motive and perpetrator are
negative, since the present study does not look at motive in isolation, the logic here
suggests the following.

H2: Acceptability for violent reprisal in the observed film will be lower when a
violent act is performed by a disliked perpetrator with unsanctioned motives, than when
the dispositions toward perpetrator and motive are neutral.

Other research questions. Though not addressed in research on balance theory,
there is great interest in questions concerning the ability of exposure to morally
congruous or incongruous acts of violent reprisal to impact attitudes beyond those
directly associated with the observed action sequence. In addition to questions concerning
attitudes toward the observed reprisal act itself, this following research question is
investigated to see if attitude change associated with motivational and dispositional
influences generalize to other reprisal situations and acts.

RQ3: How does incongruity between dispositional set and attitude toward
perpetrator motive for an observed act of violent reprisal interact to moderate the latitude
of acceptability for subsequently observed violent reprisal?

RQ4: How does congruity between dispositional set and attitude toward
perpetrator motive for an observed act of violent reprisal interact to moderate the latitude
of acceptability for subsequently observed violent reprisal?

Also, while not the central focus of this investigation, other predictions based on
entertainment research can be made concerning evaluative outcomes that result from
observing congruous or incongruous attitudinal elements in violent reprisal. For example,

in research on the enjoyment of violent drama involving a positive dispositional set,

19

Zillmann and Bryant (1975) demonstrate that drama containing equitable retribution
(what might be called just levels of violent reprisal) is enjoyed less than that containing
over-retribution or under-retribution. Moreover, inequitable retribution decreases like for
the liked protagonist and dislike for disliked target. Since Zillmann and Bryant’s work
included only a positive dispositional set and looked only at outcomes involving attitudes
toward characters and enjoyment of the drama, it did not address the type of issues
concerning attitudes toward violent reprisal that are central to the present study.
Nevertheless, we might expect to observe outcomes in the present study involving
attitudes toward characters and the enjoyment of the drama similar to those observed in
this earlier research. These expectations and two additional research questions are
represented here.

H3: When perpetrators in a violent film perform sanctioned acts of violent
reprisal, observer attitudes toward the perpetrator will become more positive.

H4: When perpetrators in a violent film perform unsanctioned acts of violent
reprisal, observer attitudes toward the perpetrator will become more negative.

H5: When perpetrators in a violent film perform sanctioned acts of violent
reprisal, observer enjoyment of the narrative will increase.

H6: When perpetrators in a violent film perform unsanctioned acts of violent
reprisal, observer enjoyment of the narrative will decrease.

RQ5: How does incongruity between dispositional set and attitude toward
perpetrator motive in the observed violent film interact to moderate observer enjoyment

and attitudes toward the perpetrator and the target?

20

RQ6: How does congruity between dispositional set and attitude toward
perpetrator motive in the observed violent film interact to moderate observer enjoyment

and attitudes toward the perpetrator and the target?

Method

Participants

A total of 225 students from a large Midwestern University were recruited from
an undergraduate communication course. The age of the participants ranged between 18
and 30. Of these, 78 were male and 147 were female. Participants were informed that
they were participating in a study designed to see how much they enjoyed certain types of
programming. The decision to use college students was based on two criteria. First,
college students were obviously easily accessible to the current research. Second, there is
a growing body of research suggesting that the use of college students in multivariate
experimental designs does not threaten the validity of the research, and that underlying
psychological processes tend to be consistent across a wide range of sampling frames
(see Basil, Brown, & Bocamea, 2002; Sparks, 1995; Basil, 1996).
Procedures

Prior to the laboratory procedure, surveys were administered to the participants
during class. These asked participants to respond to questions measuring demographic
characteristics, and a series of personality traits to be used as controls. Approximately
one week after the administration of the pretest, participants returned to the laboratory to
take part in an experiment. The researcher greeted the participants and brought them into

the lab, administering an informed consent form (see Appendix A) for their perusal and

21

approval. Participants were asked to read and sign the consent form, indicating that they
agreed to participate and understood their rights as participants. The consent form was
immediately removed from the laboratory in order to avoid compromising participant
anonymity.

In the experiment, participants were randomly assigned to one of nine exposure
groups. In a 3 X 3 factorial design, participants first read a brief statement intended to
establish a neutral perpetrator toward the target while manipulating both disposition
toward the perpetrator (positive, negative, or neutral), and perceived perpetrator
motivation (positive, negative, or unknown). Following this, they watched a four minute
film clip of an unprovoked attack (see below for discussion of inductions and
manipulation checks). The nine conditions were labeled positive perpetrator/positive
motive, positive perpetrator/negative motive, positive perpetrator/unknown motive,
negative perpetrator/positive motive, negative perpetrator/ negative motive, negative
perpetrator/ unknown motive, neutral perpetrator/positive motive, neutral
perpetrator/negative motive, and neutral perpetrator/ unknown motive. It should be noted
that the conditions contained in the 3 X 3 factorial design were intended to provide
different sets of comparisons needed to test specific hypotheses and research questions
proffered by the present study. The design was not intended to test any hypothesis or
research question involving the simultaneous consideration of all nine cells.

Following exposure to the video clip, all participants were asked to read a conflict
scenario and then judge the responses contained in the scenario using a scales designed to
measure participants’ perceptions of the violent responses that were most acceptable and

most objectionable, as well as their perceived latitudes of acceptable violence and

latitudes of objectionable violence. After these judgments were made, they were asked to
rate the video segments they viewed prior to reading the scenario on scales measuring
enjoyment of the video—clip and liking of both the perpetrator and victim.

Once these responses were completed, participants were asked to read a
debriefing statement stating the true nature of the study and the expected results.
Participants were then asked if they had any questions, and advised to contact the primary
investigator if they wished to inquire further about the study. Following the debriefing
procedures, participants were be given credit, thanked for their time, and released.
Induction Checks

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the stimulus materials in inducing the
dispositional and motivational factors under consideration, two separate induction checks
were performed. Separate participant samples were drawn for the main experiment and
each of the two induction tests. The induction checks were intended to demonstrate that
in the absence of other factors, the stimulus materials manipulated independently the
dispositions held toward aggressive perpetrators and the appropriateness of the perceived
motives for aggression. A brief synopsis of these checks follows.

Disposition toward perpetrators and target. Disposition was evaluated using a
sample of 36 participants recruited from an undergraduate Communication class at
Michigan State University. Participants received class credit for their participation in the
manipulation check. The procedure consisted of a survey containing four written
disposition inductions (positive perpetrator, negative perpetrator, neutral perpetrator,
neutral target) followed by the McCrosky and McCain (1974) Interpersonal Attraction

Scale, and a series of items measuring character liability adapted from the work of

23

Zillmann and Cantor (1977). In order to control for any potential ordering effects, the
order in which the different disposition inductions appeared in the survey was rotated in
one of four ways. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four induction-order
conditions.

Interpersonal Attraction Scale was measured on a response scale ranging from
one (strongly agree) to seven (strongly disagree). The 5 items of the Social Likeability
factor of the scale were selected for use here because this factor has been shown to
measure accurately the general liking of perceived others in both interpersonal
interactions (McCrosky & McCain, 1974) and parasocial interactions with television
characters (Rubin & McHugh, 1987). The items are identified in Appendix B. Mean
scores for items on this factor were computed for each participant. Reliabilities for this
factor were calculated independently for each of the four dispositional inductions.
Coefficient alpha was found to be .72 for neutral target, .72 for positive perpetrator, .74
for neutral perpetrator B, and .67 for negative perpetrator'.

The Physical Attraction and Task Attraction components of the Interpersonal
Attraction Scale were deemed not germane to validating the disposition toward
aggressive perpetrators manipulation under consideration. Therefore, they were not
included as part of this induction check. In addition, reliability scores computed for the 4
items adapted from Zillmann and Cantor (1977) produced coefficient alphas of .79 for

liked perpetrators and .76 for liked targets, but only .55 for disliked perpetrators and .16

 

' Despite a fairly low reliability for negative perpetrators, the Social Likeability measure was found to be
internally consistent across all four conditions under Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Later analyses on the
measure yielded higher alphas (p. 34). The reported reliability of .67 is most likely attenuated due to a
small sample size.

24

for neutral perpetrators. The reliability and internal consistency problems apparent with
this scale resulted in it being discarded.

In order to check the effectiveness of the disposition manipulation, mean scores
for the Social Likeability factor were first subjected to analyses testing for possible
ordering effects in the presentation of the disposition induction materials. A series of one-
way AN OVAs were performed on the mean scores of Social Likeability for each of the
four inductions using the order of presentation as an independent variable. No significant
differences resulted from order of presentation. For neutral target, F (3,32) = 1.58,
p<.214, n.s. For positive perpetrator, F (3,32) = 1.93, p<.15, n.s. For neutral perpetrator
B, F (3,32) = .885, p<.50, n.s. Finally, for negative perpetrator, F (3,32) = .281, p<.84,
n.s. Since no ordering effect was found, order was collapsed for subsequent analyses
testing the effectiveness of the disposition manipulation.

A series of t-tests were first performed on mean scores for Social Likeability in
order to examine differences between each induction. Mean scores for each group were
2.70 (SD=1.01) for negative perpetrator, 4.30 (SD=0.93) for neutral target, 4.31 for
neutral perpetrator (SD=0.93), and 5.22 (SD=0.97) for positive perpetrator. The pattern of
means indicates that negative perpetrators were found to be the least liked, followed by
neutral targets, neutral perpetrators, and liked perpetrators. Paired comparisons between
these means demonstrated significant differences between all paired, with the exception
of the two neutral conditions. For neutral target and positive perpetrator, t (35) = -6.92,
p<.001, neutral target and negative perpetrator, t (35) = 4.04, p<.001. For positive
perpetrator and neutral perpetrator, t (35) = -7.59, p<.001 , while for positive perpetrator

and negative perpetrator t (35) = 4.04, p<.001. and for neutral target and positive

25

perpetrator t (35) = -6.92, p<.001. Comparisons between the neutral perpetrator and
neutral target inductions revealed no significant differences, I (35) = -.491, p<.627, n.s.,
indicating that these inductions were relatively equivalent. Based on the results of these
analyses, these inductions were accepted for use in the laboratory procedure, as they
independently manipulated disposition in the absence of motivational considerations.

Perceived appropriateness of motivation. Perceived appropriateness of the
motivations for violence was evaluated using two scales developed specifically for the
current study. The first of these consists of six Likert type items giving statements about
the appropriateness of the observed violent behavior (e. g., “Rob Van Dam did the right
thing under the circumstances he was in.”) along with response ranges from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Reliability for this scale was found to be .86. The second
set of items consisted of 8 semantic differential items with polar opposite descriptors of
the aggressive behavior observed (e.g., Good Motives/Bad Motives,
Unreasonable/Reasonable, etc.). Subjects were asked to place a check in one of seven
boxes that most closely matched their opinion of what they had just seen. Coefficient
alpha for this scale was found to be .91. Finally, both scales were combined to produce an
index of perceived appropriateness for observed violence. Coefficient alpha for the
combined measure was found to be .94 (see Appendix C for items).

A separate sample of 20 undergraduate students was recruited in order to test the
effectiveness of the written motive induction. Without any information regarding
disposition toward the characters, participants were asked to read a short passage. They
were informed that the passage provided background information about the clip they

were about to see. The passage contained information designed to produce a perception

26

of appropriate (positive), inappropriate (negative), or neutral motive for the observed
aggression (see Appendix D). Participants then watched the same film clip used in the
experimental procedure (see below), and were subsequently asked to respond to the
perceived appropriateness for observed violence items regarding the aggressive behavior.
In order to test the effectiveness of the induction in manipulating perceived
appropriateness, oneway ANOVA was performed on the perceived appropriateness for
observed violence measure, using polynomial contrasts to test for linearity across the
three conditions. Both the pattern of means and the significance test for the polynomial
contrast are indicative of a linear trend in the perceived appropriateness of retribution
across the three conditions. On a scale of 1 (very unacceptable) to 7 (very acceptable),
with 4 as a midpoint (neutral), mean scores for perceived appropriateness were found to
be 2.75 for the negative condition, 3.66 for the neutral condition, and 4.63 for the good
condition, indicating that the negative motive was found unacceptable, the neutral motive
somewhat neutral, and the positive motive somewhat acceptable. The global F test for the
oneway ANOVA performed on these means indicated significant differences across the
three groups, F (2, 19) = 3.84, p<.04. However, despite the fact that the means achieved
significance on a global F test, and the existence of substantial differences between the
means, post hoc test individual comparisons between means failed to demonstrate
significant differences between all means. Acceptability scores for good and bad motives
were found to be significantly different (p<.03), but significant differences were not
found between good and neutral or good and bad motives. The failure of these individual

comparisons to reach significance appears on surface to be a product of an underpowered

27

significance test. Thus, in order to further explore these differences, polynomial contrasts

were employed to test for a linear trend in the means.

Tests for linearity found the pattern of means to represent a linear trend in the data

from unacceptable through neutral and acceptable, F (1,19) = 6.69, p<.02. While failing
to produce significant post hoc comparisons, I argue that the means found within each of
these conditions and the linear associations demonstrated across these means are
substantive evidence of the perception of acceptable, neutral, and unacceptable motives
for aggression. The results demonstrate that independent of dispositional concerns,
participants responded with the intended perceptions of motive. Based on these results,
the motivation inductions were included in the experimental materials to represent
positive, negative, and neutral motives for aggression.

Experimental Materials

The experimental materials used in the study included three “background
information” sheets designed to manipulate disposition and motive, a wrestling video
clip, and a conflict scenario text read prior to judging the acceptability of the violent
reprisal. The background information sheets appear in Appendix D.

Disposition manipulation. Before viewing the violent-assault scene, participants
were asked to read a sheet describing the characters they were about to see. The first
paragraph of the background information sheet informed the participants that were about
to watch a film clip from a televised sport, and that this sheet had been provided in order
to give them background information on the characters.

In the positive perpetrator conditions, the sheet describes the perpetrator (“Rob

Van Dam”) as being a clean and fair competitor, an honest family man, and a

28

i“ '---"--r

philanthropic individual who has given a lot of time and money to help the less fortunate.
The negative perpetrator induction, on the other hand, describes him as a widely despised
cheater who has deliberately injured opponents, has a long history of legal troubles, and
faces allegations of substance abuse and domestic violence. The neutral perpetrator
disposition describes him in a manner almost identical to that of the target, rephrased in
such a way as to not appear to be exactly the same description. The decision was made to
use dispositional elements involving behaviors both on camera and in their personal lives
in order to ensure that these dispositional considerations would be manipulated,
regardless of whether participants draw these inferences from television personas or
offstage behaviors.

Across all three perpetrator dispositions, the violent-assault scenario (“Triple H”)
described the target using the neutral target induction previously discussed. The
description specifically states that people in the industry have a “middle of the road”
attitude toward him, and that very few seem to strongly like or strongly dislike him.
Similar to all perpetrator manipulations, it goes on to describe some of his capabilities
inside the ring.

Motivation manipulation. Manipulation of apparent motivation was achieved by
varying the description of an event that had previously occurred. In the positive
condition, the attacking character is described as having been forced to do so by the
owner of the company in order to improve ratings and ensure that he and many others do
not lose their jobs. In the negative condition, the attacker is described as having been seen

bragging about how he is going to beat up another wrestler so that he may gain money

29

and status. The unknown condition simply states that there is a lot of tension between the
two characters at this time, but no one is really sure why.

Wrestling video clip. Following the written inductions, participants viewed the
violent assault scene. This scene begins with an opening to a wrestling match in which
the target, “Triple H,” is introduced to the audience and makes his way to the ring
accompanied by loud music, fan noise and pyrotechnics set against a dark background.
The commentators inform the audience that Triple H is entering the ring to face an

unknown opponent. After a minute or so of posturing on tumbuckles in each comer of the

.. ‘

ring, he is attacked from behind by the perpetrator, “Rob Van Dam,” who has entered the
ring undetected. As the house lights come up “Rob Van Dam” strikes “Triple H”
repeatedly and knocks him sprawling to the ground, while the commentators remark that
he cannot be the unknown opponent since he has already competed earlier in the show.
Finally, “Rob Van Dam” hits “Triple H” in the face with a title belt, bloodying his mouth
and nose, before being forcibly removed from the ringside area by referees and security
guards.

Conflict scenario. The conflict scenario is adapted from research by Tamborini
and Lachlan (2003). The scenario contains a positive dipositional set (i.e., a liked
perpetrator and disliked target) with positive motives. A positive dipositional set with
positive motive was selected based on the belief that it would provide the best
opportunity to observe change in the direction predicted to result from exposure to the
type of content under study - i.e., change toward an increase in the latitude of
acceptability of aggressive reprisal. While change toward the increased acceptability of

aggressive reprisal in circumstances that normally fail to sanction any type of aggression

3O

(e.g., when disliked people have unjust motives for aggressive reprisal) is theoretically
consistent with the predictions offered here, this change is believed difficult to observe
under conditions where aggression is constrained by deeply ingrained inhibitions.
Conditions associated with fewer inhibitions toward the use of aggression should provide
a greater opportunity to see the predicted change. The decision to use a positive

dispositional set with positive motives was based on Tamborini and Lachlan’s (2003)

-.-

research showing that aggression was generally more acceptable under these conditions.

The scenario reads as follows: “Joe, one of the most likable people you could ever

r--. ::—-—--. 1r

meet at school, walks into a room and sees Tony, a well known and widely despised
campus bully. The last time they met, Tony threatened to knock Joe unconscious. Since
Tony had always followed through with similar threats to others, Joe was sure that once
Tony saw him he would make good on this threat. Joe wanted to protect himself. With
this in mind, Joe decided to....” The list of 15 possible perpetrator responses to the
circumstances described follows the scenario.
Measures

Two sets of measures were included in this study. The central outcome was
obtained with scales administered in the main experiment used to measure the type of
response participants’ found most acceptable and objectionable, as well as participants’
latitudes of acceptance, rejection, and non-commitment for acts of violent reprisal to the
threatening circumstances read in the conflict scenario following exposure to the
wrestling clip. Outcome measures also were collected on attitude towards the perpetrator
and target in the wrestling video clip, and on enjoyment of the video clip. Measures of

participant differences were collected in the pretest. These consisted of a demographic

31

questionnaire and five standard individual difference scales including the Buss-Perry
Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992), the Revised Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire (Eysenck et a1., 1985) The Kohn Authoritarianism-Rebellion Scale (Kohn,
1972), a Social Justice Questionnaire adapted from Raney and Bryant’s (2002) research,
and a perceived realism scale adapted from work by Rubin (1981) (see Appendences E,
F, G, and H). These measures served as controls for extraneous influence due to
preexisting individual trait differences.

With the exception of the central outcome measures of response acceptability and
objectionability (which had an ordered alternatives response scale structure that called for
different treatment) all outcome and participant attributes measures were evaluated using
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Hunter & Gerbing, 1982) in order to test the internal
consistency of the measurement models forwarded. Results of these factor analytic
procedures are reported here along with descriptions of the scales themselves.

Latitude of acceptable violent reprisal. The main outcome variable was measured
with an ordered alternatives questionnaire using procedures established by Sherif (1962)
in research on attitude structures. While parts of Sherif’ s theoretical work have been
criticized for its inability to accurately predict attitude change, the procedures used in his
research are considered a useful approach to observing and understanding the structure of
attitude judgments (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). The questionnaire used here was developed
and shown reliable in work by Tamborini and Lachlan (2003). The instrument presents a
list of 15 statements designed to represent the entire range of possible behavioral
responses (from the extremely pro-social to the extremely anti-social) to the

circumstances presented in the conflict scenario (see Appendix 1). Respondents were

32

asked to identify the positions they found acceptable and unacceptable under the given
circumstances.

Following Sherif’ s (1962) protocol, participants were asked to respond to the
scenario four times, each time in a different way. They were asked to indicate on the list
of 15 possible responses what they thought was the “most acceptable” response, other
“also acceptable” responses, the “most objectionable” response and other “also
Objectionable” responses. Each response was collected using identical scales. The
anchors for the scale were set at extremes in order to minimize the likelihood of basement
and ceiling effects.

The list of statements presented 15 potential actions the perpetrator might take
under the circumstances given in the scenario. It was intended to represent the entire
scope of positions one could take on issues of violent reprisal. The behaviors ranged from
those that are extremely helpful and non-violent (1) through neutral (8), through
extremely violent and antisocial (15). The 15 attitude statements appear in Appendix I.

For the first response, participants were asked first to “place a check next to the
one that you think is the most acceptable thing for him to do in the situation described.”
The item selected by the respondent served as the measure of “most acceptable” reprisal.
Once this was completed, participants were given the same scale and asked to check also
all other positions on the scale they find acceptable in addition to the one the find most
acceptable. The range of behaviors checked served as a measure of their “latitude of
acceptable violent reprisal.” For the third response, labeled “most objectionable,”

participants were asked to check the statement they found most objectionable. In the final

33

response, labeled “latitude of objectionable violent reprisal” participants were asked to
check all other positions on the scale they find objectionable.

Acceptability for observed violence. Acceptability for observed violence was
measured by loosely adapting a measure of deservedness used by Raney (2002). The
items asked the respondent to evaluate the extent to which the victim in the observed
violent assault scenario deserved violent retribution. Items were responded to on a
numbered scale ranging from 0 (deserved much less punishment) to 11 (deserved much
more punishment), with a center point at 6. Raney (2002) reports the reliability of this
two-item scale equaled .70. Two additional items were added to the scale in order to meet
the minimum criteria for Confirmatory Factor Analysis and to potentially improve the
reliability of the scale. Confirmatory Analytic procedures revealed the scale to be
internally consistent with ample factor loadings and a reliability of .81.

Dispositions toward the perpetrator and target. Dispositions toward the
perpetrator and target viewed in the video clip were evaluated using the 15 item
McCrosky and McCain (1974) Interpersonal Attraction Scale described in the induction
check. The scale evaluates the liking of others along three dimensions: social liking, task
attraction, and physical attraction (see Appendix B). Central to the concerns of this
dissertation is the social liking dimension; however, the other dimensions were included
for additional analyses. Five of the six subscales were found to be internally consistent
and reliable. Perpetrator (u = .79) and target (a = .71) social attraction each required the
dropping of one item, as did perpetrator (u = .83) and target (or = .86) physical attraction.

Target task attraction (or = .81) was found to be reliable, while perpetrator task attraction

34

 

(a = .62 maximum) was not, despite several attempts at dropping various combinations of
items. Perpetrator task attraction is thusly removed from further analyses.

Enjoyment of the video clip. Enjoyment of the video clip was rated using an eight-
item scale adapted from Raney (2002). Six items measured participants’ evaluation of
the video clip by asking them to rate their overall enjoyment, their enjoyment of the
genre, and how exciting, suspenseful, good, and well acted they thought it was. Two
additional items measured how much they would like to see the entire movie and how
likely they were to watch it in the future (see Appendix J). Responses were obtained on
an 11-point scale from “0” representing not at all (e.g., “Not at all exciting”) to “10”
representing extremely (e.g., “Extremely exciting”). Coefficient alpha was found to be
.88 (see Appendix J).

Perceived Realism. Perceived Realism was measured using a scale developed by
Rubin (1981) in an effort to assess viewers’ perceptions of general television
programming. The decision to include this variable was made based on past studies
linking perceived realism with televisions impact on learning (Rubin, 1979) and the
cultivation of attitudes and beliefs (Perse, 1986). The scale contains five Likert-type
items asking for responses of agreement and disagreement to statements about the realism
of television programming (see Appendix H). Evaluation of the inter-item correlations
and factor loadings for each of these items led to one item being dropped from inclusion
in further analyses. Coefficient alpha for the modified scale was found to be .79.

The Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire. The Buss-Perry Aggression
Questionnaire (BPAQ) measures trait aggressiveness through four distinct subtraits, each

represented by a subscale on the BPAQ (Buss & Perry, 1992). These subtraits are

35

physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and hostility. The scale contains 29
standard Likert-type items. Items such as "If somebody hits me, I hit back" represent
physical aggressiveness, and items such as "I can't help getting into arguments when
people disagree with me" represent verbal aggressiveness. Likewise, items such as "Some
of my friends think I'm a hothead" and "At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of
life" measure anger and hostility, respectively (see Appendix E). Buss and Perry (1992)
demonstrated a significant relationship between peer nominations of aggressiveness and
scores on these four aggression subscales for male college students. In the present study,
the hostility (a = .74), physical aggression (a = .84) and verbal aggression (a = .79)
subscales were found to be internally consistent in their original forms, while one item
was dropped from the argumentativeness subscale (a = .80).

The Revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. The Revised Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire (REPQ) contains 48 items measuring four personality "types" -
- extroversion, neuroticism, psychoticism, and social desirability. The scale has proven
reliable in several studies (Eysenck et al., 1985). Extroversion is said to tap an
individual’s level of social adaptability. Neuroticism involves an individual’s level of
anxiety, emotionality, and social isolation (see Appendix F). Psychoticism assays an
individual's inclination toward a "lack of restraint, responsibility, need for cognitive
structure, and willingness to live by society's rules and mores (socialization)"
(Zuckerman, Kuhlman, & Camac, 1988, p.104). Social desirability measures an
individual’s likelihood to participate in acts that may be deemed socially inappropriate.
Confirmatory Factor Analyses performed on the psychoticism (or = .56) and social

desirability (a = .67) subscales failed to meet minimum criteria for internal consistency

36

and scale reliability, thus these scales were dropped from further analysis. Extroversion
(a = .80) and neuroticism (a = .78) were both found to be internally consistent after
dropping two items from each subscale.

The Kohn Authoritarianism-Rebellion Scale. The Kohn (1972) Authoritarianism-
Rebellion Scale is a 30 item Likert type scale measuring ranges of agreement and
disagreement to statements with both extremely conservative and left-wing political
ideologies. The scale also includes items concerning isolationism, religious dogmatism,
and tolerance for deviance as additional measures of dogmatic personality characteristics.
Despite demonstrating adequate levels of reliability in the current factor analysis, both
the Rebelliousness and Authoritarianism factors of the scale fell apart in terms of internal
consistency, with factor loadings as low as .09. Subsequently, the scale was dropped from
further analyses.

The Social Justice Questionnaire. The Social Justice Questionnaire is a 33 item
Likert-type scale measuring range of agreement with statements regarding social
judgments and empathy. The scale items measure three independent factors, including
vigilantism, approval of punishment, and empathic concern for others in need (see
Appendix G). Raney and Bryant (2002) report coefficient alphas of .92 for the
vigilantism factor, .85 for approval of punishment, and .75 for empathy. Factor analyses
performed on the current data revealed similarly acceptable results, with alphas of .89 for
vigilantism, .85 for approval of punishment, and .85 for empathy (with one item
removed).

In addition to these personality measures, the pretest questionnaire included

demographic items such as age, race, sex, and socioeconomic status. It also included a

37

measure of media use asking amount of time spent watching television, listening to
music, playing video games, and using the intemet at different times during the week.
Initial analyses show that these variables have no impact on hypothesized relations. As
such, they were excluded from further analyses.
Results

Analyses began by looking at descriptive statistics to determine respondents
overall attitudes toward violent reprisal prior to considering specific hypotheses and
research questions. Hypotheses were then examined with t-tests to compare the mean
scores on the Raney Victim Deservedness Scale, perpetrator attractiveness and enjoyment
of the clip across different conditions of disposition and perpetrator motive. Research
questions were explored first using oneway ANOVAs and subsequent LSD post hoc
comparisons to look for differences between groups in mean scores for acceptability of
observed victimization, most acceptable behavioral responses to the described conflict
scenario, perpetrator attractiveness, target attractiveness, and enjoyment of the clip in
varying combinations of disposition and motive conditions. The research questions were
further explored using oneway ANCOVA analyses in order to evaluate the influence of
trait personality variables on the observed differences across conditions.
Descriptive Statistics

Analyses conducted on outcome measures show that the sample as a whole did
not favor violent reprisal, neither in the observed violent clip nor the response to the
subsequent behavioral appraisal. Perceptions of victim deservedness in the observed clip
were rather low, M =2.87, SD = 1.28, on a scale ranging from one to seven. Interestingly,

about 14% of the sample reported a score above the midpoint of 4, indicating that the

38

observed violence was at least to some degree acceptable. Subsequent measures of most
acceptable response to the written conflict scenario for the entire sample produced M =
6.74, SD = 2.80, while the most frequent response was 8 (the neutral mid-point on the
scale). However, almost 13% of the sample thought the most acceptable response was
some level of violent reprisal above the mid-point. An additional 41% of the sample felt
that some sort of violent reprisal would also be acceptable, while 10% stated that enough
force to cause temporary disability was appropriate. Not surprisingly, on measures of
most objectionable response, most respondents rated the anchor for extremely violent
antisocial behavior as most objectionable (M = 13.37, SD = 3.65). However, it is again
notable that approximately 22% of the respondents found something other than this
extremely violent response to be the most objectionable position on the scale.

In order to describe the basic pattern of means found across all outcome variables,
mean scores for each outcome variable are described within the nine conditions in the

current study. These means can be found in Table 1.

39

Table l.

+ Disposition
+ Motive

+ Disposition
- Motive

+ Disposition
? Motive

- Disposition
+ Motive

- Disposition
- Motive

- Disposition
? Motive

0 Disposition
+ Motive

0 Disposition
- Motive

0 Disposition
? Motive

1&9:

+ = positive
- = negative
0 = neutral

? = unknown

Victim
Deservedness

3.10
(1.20)

2.77
(1.02)

2.80
(1.24)

2.52
(0.94)

2.51
(1.28)

2.58
(1.23)

3.38
(1.50)

2.59
(1.24)

3.58
(1.44)

Dependent Variable Means by Condition

Most
Acceptable

6.45
(3.58)

6.88
(2.74)

6.58
(2.78)

6.40
(2.75)

7.04
(2.18)

7.04
(2.77)

7.79
(2.30)

5.28
(2.59)

7.48
(3.01)

Perpetrator
Attractiveness

4.17
(1.15)

3.79
(0.98)

3.85
(0.85)

3.55
(0.63)

3.47
(0.78)

3.08
(0.76)

4.03
(1.12)

3.53
(0.86)

3.90
(0.69)

Means reported with standard deviations in parentheses.

40

Target
Attractiveness

3.79
(1.25)

2.99
(0.99)

3.09
(1.37)

3.07
(1.17)

3.74
(0.87)

3.07
(0.99)

3.22
(1.25)

3.53
(1.50)

3.48
(1.13)

Enjoyment

2.69
(1.64)

2.66
(1.27)

2.73
(1.55)

1.92
(0.98)

2.69
(1.48)

2.51
(1.29)

2.64
(1.36)

2.40
(1.43)

3.09
(1.96)

Congruity and Acceptance of Observed Violence.

Hypothesis one posited that when violence is committed by a positive character
with a sanctioned motive, such victimization within the clip would be found more
acceptable than when it is committed by neutral characters with unknown motives. In
order to test this hypothesis, cases were selected from the positive perpetrator/positive
motive and neutral perpetrator/ unknown motive conditions. Scores on the Raney Victim
Deservedness Scale were then compared using a simple t-test. Results of this t-test
revealed no significant difference between the two groups on their mean approval of
observed film violence, I (47) = 1.25, p=.22, n.s. Participants in the positive
perpetrator/positive motive condition (M =3. 10, SD=1.20) were no more approving of
observed film violence than those in the neutral perpetrator/unknown motive group
(M=3.58, SD=1.44). Thus, hypothesis one was not supported.

Hypothesis two predicted that when violence is committed by a negative character
with an unsanctioned motive, such victimization within the clip would be found more
acceptable than when it is committed by neutral characters with unknown motives In
order to test this hypothesis, cases were selected from the negative perpetrator/negative
motive and neutral perpetrator/ unknown motive conditions. Scores on the Raney Victim
Deservedness Scale were again compared using a simple t—test. Results of this t—test
revealed a significant difference between the two groups on their mean approval of
observed film violence, t (48) = -2.78, p<.01 Participants in the negative
perpetrator/negative motive condition (M=2.51, SD=1.28) were significantly less
approving of observed film violence than those in the neutral perpetrator/unknown

motive group (M=3.58, SD=1.44). This finding serves to support hypothesis two.

41

Motives for Violence and Attitudes Toward Perpetrators.

Hypothesis three predicted that characters with positive motives for violence
would be liked more than those with unknown or negative motives, while hypothesis four
posited that characters with negative motives for violence would be less liked than those
with unknown or positive motives. Both hypothesis three and hypothesis four were tested
using a series of t tests comparing the paired means for perpetrators with positive,
negative, and unknown motives. The test comparing scores for positive and negative
motives revealed t (147) = 2.11, p<.05. while the test comparing good and unknown
motives found t (147) = 2.16, p<.05. Characters with good motives (M=3.93, SD: 1.02)
were liked significantly more than those with bad (M=3.60, SD=0.88) or unknown
(M=3.59, SD: 0.85) motives. No significant differences were found between perpetrators
with bad and unknown motives, t (147) = .02, p=.98, n.s. The analyses lend support to
hypothesis three, but only limited support to hypothesis four, as perpetrator likeability did
not differ between bad and unknown motives.

Motives for Violence and Enjoyment of Film

Hypothesis five stated that participants would report greater enjoyment of the
observed violent clip when violence was committed by characters with sanctioned
motives, while hypothesis six posited that participants would report less enjoyment of the
observed violent clip when violence was committed by a perpetrator with an
unsanctioned motive. Hypotheses five and six were examined using paired t tests to
comparing the mean scores for participant enjoyment in the positive and negative motive
conditions to those in the unknown motive condition. Paired comparisons between

positive and unknown motives, t (147) = -1.47, p=.14, n.s. and negative and unknown

42

motives, t (147) = -0.79, p=.43, n.s., failed to reveal significant differences between the
means. Thus, hypotheses five and six are not supported.
Incongruity and the Acceptance of Observed Violence

Research question one asked what the impact of an incongruous presentation of
violence, with a negative perpetrator and a positive motive, would have on the
acceptability of victimization within the clip. Cases were selected from the negative
perpetrator/positive motive, negative perpetrator/ negative motive, and neutral
perpetrator/unknown motive conditions in order to compare the incongruous condition to
both a congruous condition with a negative perpetrator and the completely neutral
condition. Responses to the Raney Victim Deservedness Scale were drawn from these
three conditions and subjected to a simple oneway ANOVA with LSD post hoc tests.

Results of the global ANOVA revealed significant differences across the three
conditions, F (2, 72) = 6.05, p<.01, n2=.07. Subsequent post hoc tests using LSD
revealed significant differences between the neutral perpetrator/unknown motive
condition (M =3.58, SD=1.44) and both the negative perpetrator/negative motive
condition (M=2.51, SD=1.28), p<.01, and the negative perpetrator/positive motive
condition (M =2.52, SD=0.94) p<.01.

Research question two asked what the impact of an incongruous presentation of
violence, with a positive perpetrator and a negative motive, would have on the
acceptability of victimization within the clip. Cases were selected from the positive
perpetrator/positive motive, positive perpetrator/ negative motive, and neutral
perpetrator/unknown motive conditions, again to compare the incongruous condition to

both a congruous condition with a positive perpetrator and the completely neutral

condition. Responses to the Raney VictimDeservedness Scale were identified as
indicative of perceived appropriateness of violence and were drawn from these three
conditions and subjected to a simple oneway ANOVA with Least Square Difference
(LSD) post hoc tests.

ANOVA on victim deservedness approached significance, F (2, 71) = 2.73,
p=.07, n.s. While the ANOVA only approached significance, post hoc LSD tests revealed
a significant difference between victim deservedness in the positive disposition/negative
motive condition (M =2.77, SD=1.02) and the neutral disposition/unknown motive
condition (M =3.58, SD: 1.44), p<.05. The results also indicate that no differences
between these two conditions and positive perpetrator/negative motive (M =2.77.
SD=1.02). Observed film violence was more acceptable when committed by a neutral
perpetrator with and unknown motive than when it was committed by a positive
perpetrator with a negative motive.

Congruity, Incongruity and Subsequent Moral Appraisals

While the first two research questions examined the effect of film character
disposition and motive on an observer’s approval of violence directly related to those
characters, follow-up research questions examined the impact of these contextual
elements on attitudes concerning unrelated events occurring in a subsequent scenario. In
order to answer this research question, two sets of analyses were conducted first on the
most acceptable position of reprisal. Following this, additional analyses were conducted
on the range of acceptable positions from the Tamborini and Lachlan Latitudes of

Acceptance for Violence scale.

Research question three asked what effect violence presented with incongruous
dispositional and motivational contexts would have on subsequent evaluations of
aggressive reprisal. In order to test for the impact of such incongruous portrayals, cases
were selected from the positive disposition/negative motive, negative disposition/positive
motive, and neutral perpetrator/unknown motive conditions in order to compare the
different incongruous presentations of violence to each other and to a completely neutral
position. Mean scores for most acceptable position of reprisal were evaluated in a oneway
ANOVA across these three conditions. ANOVA revealed no significant differences
between the three groups in terms of the most acceptable level of violent reprisal in
secondary behavioral analyses, F (2, 72) =.91, p=.41, n.s. This finding contrasts with
earlier findings showing that observed violence with incongruous dispositional and
motivational contexts was most approved when performed by positive characters, and
provides no evidence that this incongruous presentation of violence differs from neutral
presentations in any way in terms of its effect on subsequent moral appraisals regarding
the use of violence.

In order to explore the possibility that the lack of differences across these
conditions may be a product of individual personality or demographic variables, a second
analysis was performed on most acceptable position of violent reprisal using a oneway
ANCOVA and controlling for age, sex, socioeconomic status, perceived realism, physical
aggression, hostility, verbal aggression, argumentativeness, extroversion, neuroticism,
empathy, vigilantism, and punitiveness. Once again, ANCOVA revealed no significant
differences across the three conditions, F (2, 62) = .38, p=.70, n.s. Also worthy of note is

the fact that none of the covariates entered into the model were significantly related to the

45

outcome measure of most acceptable position. The strongest of these covariates,
perceived realism, only accounted for 4% of the variance in the model.

Research question four asked what impact congruous portrayals of film violence
would have on subsequent behavioral appraisals. In order to first test for the impact of
such congruous portrayals on subsequent behavioral evaluations, cases were first selected
from the positive disposition/positive motive, negative disposition/negative motive, and
neutral perpetrator/unknown motive conditions in order to compare the different [

congruous presentations of violence to each other and to a completely neutral position.

 

Mean scores for most acceptable position of reprisal were evaluated in a oneway ‘
AN OVA across these three conditions. The test across these three conditions failed to

reveal significant differences across the cell means, F (2, 72) = .96, p=.39, n.s. Again,

this finding suggests that while observed violence with incongruous dispositional and

motivational contexts was most approved when performed by positive characters, there is

no evidence that this incongruous presentation of violence differs from neutral

presentations in influencing moral appraisals of a second scenario immediately following

exposure.

Once again, a second analysis was performed on most acceptable position of
violent reprisal, using a oneway ANCOVA and controlling for age, sex, socioeconomic
status, perceived realism, physical aggression, hostility, verbal aggression,
argumentativeness, extroversion, neuroticism, empathy, vi gilantism, and punitiveness.
The F test for this analysis revealed no significant differences across the three conditions,

F (2, 62) = .59, p=.56, n.s. None of the covariates included in the model were found to be

46

significantly predictive of subsequent behavioral appraisals in terms of most acceptable
position.

Finally, additional analyses were conducted to inspect the impact of both
congruous and incongruous portrayal of violence on the “latitudes of acceptance” for
violent reprisal using the technique developed by Sherif (1964). In order to make these
comparisons, frequency distributions were first created for each of the fifteen items in the
Tamborini and Lachlan (2003) Latitudes of Acceptable Reprisal instrument within each
of the experimental conditions. These frequency distributions described the number of
participants identifying each response as also acceptable. As described earlier, the
latitude of acceptance for any group of respondents is defined as the set of items
identified as acceptable by at least 50% of the respondents.

For research question three, comparisons were made between the latitudes of
acceptance in both the positive disposition/negative motive and negative
disposition/positive motive conditions and the neutral/perpetrator/unknown motive
condition in order to determine the impact of incongruous portrayals on latitudes of
acceptance for subsequently observed behavior.. For those in the neutral
perpetrator/unknown motive condition, the lone latitude position was the midpoint of 8.
For those having seen violence committed by a positive perpetrator/negative motive, the
latitude included position 5, and positions 7 through 9. Those in the negative
perpetrator/positive motive condition indicated latitudes of subsequent acceptance of 7
and 8.

For research question four, comparisons were made between the latitudes of

acceptance in both the positive disposition/positive motive and negative

47

disposition/negative motive conditions and the neutral/perpetrator/unknown motive
condition in order to determine the impact of congruous portrayals on latitudes of
acceptance for subsequently observed behavior. For those who had witnessed a violent
act committed by a liked character with a positive motive, the 50% of sample acceptance
level was found for items 4, 5, 7 and 8. Those having seen negative perpetrators with
negative motives indicated latitudes of subsequent acceptance of 7 and 8, while those in
the neutral perpetrator/unknown motive condition again demonstrated a single latitude
point of 8. (see Table 2). Latitudes of acceptance relevant to research questions three and
four are also reported in Table 2. Latitudes of acceptance for the other conditions not

included in these research questions are also included for descriptive purposes.

48

Table 2.

Latitudes of Acceptance for Violence in Written Scenario Following Portrayals of Film
Violence with Incongruous, Neutral, and Congruous Disposition-Motive Sets

Extreme Extreme
Prosocial Neutral Violence

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

+Disposition X X X X
+Motive

+Disposition X X X X
- Motive

+ Disposition X
? Motive

- Disposition X X
+ Motive

- Disposition X X
- Motive

- Disposition X
- ? Motive

0 Disposition X
+ Motive

0 Disposition X X X X
- Motive

0 Disposition x
? Motive

m:

+ = positive

- = negative

0 = neutral

? = unknown

X indicates position found acceptable by 50% or more of sub-sample

49

Incongruity, Enjoyment, and Attitudes Toward Characters

Research question five asked what impact incongruous dispositional and
motivational portrayals of violence would have on attitudes toward aggressive
perpetrators, attitudes toward targets of violence, and enjoyment of the observed clip. In
order to address this question, cases were selected from the positive disposition/negative
motive, negative disposition/positive motive, and neutral perpetrator/unknown motive '
conditions in order to compare the two incongruous conditions to each other and to a
neutral control condition. Across each of these three conditions, oneway ANOVAs with

post hoc comparisons were conducted on perpetrator social attractiveness, target social

‘_‘>_ax :.

attractiveness, and enjoyment of the clip.

The results of the one way AN OVAs showed a significant main effect for
enjoyment, F (2, 72) = 4.04, p<.05, n2=.10. Post hoc LSD comparisons for enjoyment
revealed that aggressive acts committed by positive perpetrators with negative motives
(M=2.66, SD: 1.27) was found less enjoyable than those committed by neutral characters
with unknown motives (M=3.09, SD=1.96). No significant differences were detected for
perpetrator social attractiveness F (2, 72) = 1.29, p=.28, or attitudes toward the target of
violence, F (2, 72) = 1.72, p=.25, n.s.

In order to explore the impact of individual difference variables on attitudes and
enjoyment, oneway ANCOVAs were also conducted on perpetrator social attractiveness,
target social attractiveness, and enjoyment. When controlling for demographics and
personality variables, no significant differences across the three conditions emerged for
perpetrator attractiveness, F (2, 62) =1 .66, p=.20, n.s. Perpetrator attractiveness was

positively related to perceived realism, F (1, 62) = 10.02, p<.01, 112:. 12, verbal

50

aggressiveness, F (l, 62) = 7.39, p<.01, , 112:.07 argumentativeness, F (1, 62) = 9.37,
p<.01, , n2=.15, and extroversion, F (l, 62) = 8.97, p<.01 , 112:.14, and negatively related
to empathy, F ( l, 62) = 6.93, p<.01 , 112:.07.

Controlling for the same variables, no significant differences emerged for target
social attractiveness, F (2, 62) = .793, p=.49, n.s., and none of the included covariates
were found to be significant predictors of target likeability. For enjoyment, the previously
reported differences found across condition did not emerge when controlling for relevant
covariates, F (2, 62) = 1.54, p=.23, n.s. However, perceived realism, F (1, 62) = 7.84,
p<.01, n2=.12, verbal aggressiveness, F (1, 62): 10.49, p<.01, , n2=.02, and
argumentativeness F (1, 62) = 7.79, p<.01 , 112:.02 were positively related to enjoyment,
while empathy was negatively related to enjoyment, F (l, 62) = 14.61, p<.001. , n2=09.
Congruity, Enjoyment, and Attitudes Toward Characters

Research question six asked what impact congruous dispositional and
motivational portrayals of violence would have on attitudes toward aggressive
perpetrators, attitudes toward targets of violence, and overall enjoyment of the observed
clip. In order to address this question, cases were selected from the positive
disposition/positive motive, negative disposition/negative motive, and neutral
perpetrator/unknown motive conditions in order to compare the two congruous conditions
to each other and to a neutral control condition. Across each of these three conditions,
oneway ANOVAs with post hoc comparisons were conducted on perpetrator social
attractiveness, target social attractiveness, and enjoyment of the clip.

The results of the one way ANOVA for perpetrator social attractiveness revealed

F (2, 71) = 3.88, p<.05. , 112:.10. Subsequent LSD comparisons showed that perpetrators

51

in the positive disposition/positive motive condition (M=4.l7, SD: 1.15) were
significantly more attractive than those in the negative disposition/negative motive
(M=3.47, SD=0.78), p<.05, while neither differed significantly from neutral
perpetrators/unknown motive. Significant differences were not found for attitudes toward
the target of violence, F (2, 71) = .575, p=.57, n.s. or enjoyment F (2, 71) = .452, p=.64,
n.s.

Oneway ANCOVAs were also conducted on perpetrator social attractiveness,
target social attractiveness, and enjoyment. Results of these analyses indicated no
differences across any of the outcome variables when controlling for demographic and
psychographic measures. For perpetrator social attractiveness, F (2, 61) = 2.30, p=.11,
n.s., target social attractiveness, F (2, 61) = 1.65, p=.20, n.s., or enjoyment F (2, 61) =
.647, p=.53. Target social attractiveness was positively related to physical
aggressiveness, F (1, 61) = 7.16, p<.01, and argumentativeness, F (1, 61) = 4.03, p<.05.
Enjoyment was positively related to physical aggressiveness, F (1, 61) = 6.17, p<.05,
verbal aggressiveness, F (l, 61) = 4.67, p<.05, and argumentativeness, F ( l , 61) = 9.78,
p<.01.

Discussion

An initial examination of the results reported above reveals both expected and
unexpected findings concerning manner in which disposition and motive shape the
influence of exposure to violent media on aggression. These analyses show that viewers
found violence committed by bad characters less acceptable than violence committed by
good or neutral characters, were generally less approving of violence with incongruous

disposition and motive, and found acts committed with good motives more acceptable

52

than those with bad or neutral motives. Analyses of enjoyment of the film clip found no
differences across the conditions examined, but attitudes toward the perpetrator were
more favorable when he was described as a good character with good motives. The
analyses performed on acceptance of violence in a subsequent scenario indicated no
differences across disposition or motive for the position found most acceptable, but
indicated that the range of behaviors considered acceptable may include mild aggression
after watching good characters aggress with bad motives.

Notably, the analysis plan used to address the specific hypotheses and research
questions posed in this study was limited to t-tests, oneway ANOVAs and oneway
ANCOVAs. What’s more, these analyses are unable to explore some associations
suggested in the data but not established in my hypotheses. Several fully crossed post-hoe
ANOVAs and ANCOVAs were conducted to further examine the manner in which
disposition and motive are associated with perceptions of the aggressive behavior in the
violent clip. These analyses are reported below. While the findings here are only
preliminary, they suggest the potential for changing social attitudes toward aggression
that would generally be considered problematic.

Incongruity between disposition and motive

Incongruous presentations featuring negative characters with unsanctioned
motives were first evaluated by comparing them to both negative characters with negative
motives and neutral characters with unknown motives. In the case of disliked
perpetrators, motive for violence does not appear to be an important factor. The mean
acceptability scores for disliked perpetrators with sanctioned (2.51) and unsanctioned

(2.52) motives were almost identical. Regardless of perceived motive for violence,

53

audiences were less approving of violence committed by disliked characters than that
committed by neutrals.

Comparing liked perpetrators with unsanctioned motives to liked characters with
sanctioned motives revealed no differences between the two matching dispositional
conditions, while both were less accepted than the neutral disposition/unknown motive
condition. Again, the implication here is that audiences may make determinations about
the apprOpriateness of observed violence based on their dispositions toward the
characters and not on consideration of the motive for violence. Perhaps more alarmingly,
it appears as though acts that are committed without dispositional or motivational
considerations are those met with the least amount of disapproval.

Next, the analyses on incongruous portrayals turn our attention to enjoyment of
the observed clip and attitudes toward perpetrators and motive. While significant
differences between conditions did not emerge for attitudes toward perpetrator and target,
substantive differences were observed for enjoyment. Film clips showing good
perpetrators with unsanctioned motives were loathed in comparison to the other
conditions. This is consistent with previous work by Tamborini and Lachlan (2003), who
found that ranges of acceptability for good characters with bad motives was actually
lower than bad characters, regardless of their motive. One plausible interpretation of
these findings is that some sort of expectancy violation takes place among viewers in the
positive perpetrator/negative motive condition. In other words, while we dislike scenes
showing bad characters with bad motives, aversion for these scenes is not as pronounced
as it is for good characters with bad motives, because good characters are not expected to

aggress under such conditions.

54

Perhaps most central to the current research, the analyses examining incongruous
portrayals also went on to explore their immediate impact on subsequent moral
reasoning. In terms of the ideal level of reciprocity in a subsequent conflict scenario, the
results indicate that disposition and motivational features of observed violence have no
impact on the positions considered ideal. This finding is consistent with previous work
identifying moral judgments of violence as fairly consistent and stable over time
(Zillmann, 2000; Raney & Bryant, 2002)

However, there is evidence that the range of acceptable behaviors may be
malleable. In analyses on latitudes of acceptable reprisal, or range of responses approved
of by the viewer, all but one condition met its upper limit at the neutral point of 8.
Participants having observed a violent act committed by a liked character with an
unsanctioned motive, however, reported latitudes of acceptance that extended over the
midpoint into the mildly aggressive (9). As mentioned earlier, this condition was enjoyed
the least by participants, and past research has also demonstrated that audiences tend to
respond negatively to this particular combination of disposition and motive (Tamborini &
Lachlan, 2003). In line with early work by Heider (1958), audiences may experience
some sort of cognitive dissonance upon witnessing aggressive acts committed by liked
protagonists with socially unacceptable motives. Heider’s (1958) work posits that in
instances in which there is cognitive inconsistency in attitudes toward the actor and the
act, observers will change their attitude toward the actor or toward the observed act itself
in order to ratify such inconsistency. It follows that in the current research, observing an
act of violence associated with a positive character may have led to an attitudinal shift in

the acceptability of violence as a means of conflict resolution. When asked to appraise

55

the proper course of action in a subsequent scenario, this attitudinal shift may have
manifested in an increase in the range of behaviors considered acceptable under the
circumstances, as observers would be more approving of violence in general.

It may also be plausible that some sort of social comparison process is taking
place, consistent with earlier work by Sherif (1968). In this process, audiences may make
comparisons between the acts they are asked to evaluate (good perpetrator/sanctioned
motive) and the one they have just seen (good perpetrator/unsanctioned motive).
Contrasting this observed (and likely disapproved) event with one in which a liked
character has a normative reason for aggressing may make more aggressive responses
appear acceptable. This suggests that when faced with a behavioral decision immediately
following such exposure, viewers may be more likely to engage in aggressive behaviors,
as their own sense of justification may be inflated through comparisons to the observed
act. In the long term, individual viewers may develop, through repeated exposure, an
increase in the level of violence they view as appropriate under a given set of
circumstances.

Congruity between disposition and motive

Further analyses explored the impact of congruous dispositional and motivational
portrayals of violence on acceptance of observed aggression, enjoyment and attitudes
toward characters, and secondary moral appraisals of subsequent acts. While congruent
conditions are consistent with previous research examining the impact of “justified”
violence on audience responses, the consideration of both a neutral disposition/unknown
motive control group and multiple dependent measures provides insight into some of the

more subtle cognitive processes involved in such responses.

56

The first of these is the appearance of more positive attitudes toward perpetrators
in the positive disposition/positive motive condition than the negative
disposition/negative motive condition. However, this difference disappears when
controlling for individual personality differences. In these ANCOVA models, physical
aggressiveness and argumentativeness were significant predictors of perceived
perpetrator attractiveness, while condition was not. This suggests that individuals with
more aggressive personalities may be more likely to find perpetrators attractive,
regardless of the context of violence. This finding is of particular importance in light of
other research suggesting that the relationship between observing violence and engaging
in aggressive behavior is moderated by perpetrator attractiveness.

Of equal interest is the lack of differences between the congruous conditions in
viewer attitudes toward victims. Victims in the positive disposition/positive motive
condition were not found to be any more or less attractive than those in the negative
disposition/negative motive group, failing to indicate empathic responses by the viewer.
However, ANCOVA analyses revealed that victim social attractiveness was positively
associated with physical aggressiveness and argumentativeness. Thus attitudes toward
victims of violence may be the product of individual personality differences and not the
context of presentation.

H ypothesized outcomes

Finally, a series of analyses sought to test hypotheses drawn from previous
research both in cognitive consistency and in responses to liked and disliked media
characters. Hypotheses concerning the impact of congruous dispositional and

motivational portrayals on the acceptance of observed violence produced mixed results.

57

These hypotheses were based on earlier work (Insko, Songer, & McGarvey, 1974; Jordan
1953) claiming that situationally balanced stimuli would produce no attitudinal change
toward the perpetrator or observed act. While this logic held for portrayals of violence
with negative characters and unsanctioned motives, violence committed by good
characters with good motives were not found to be more acceptable than that committed
by neutrals. In fact, the pattern of means indicates that violence committed by these
neutral characters may be more accepted than that committed by liked characters with
good motives.

Failure to support this hypothesis suggests the need to expand upon earlier work
in Disposition Theory, in particular the consideration of acts committed by neutral
characters (Zillmann & Cantor, 1977, Zillmann 1996). While the previously found
differences between good and bad characters with matching motives are evident, violence
committed by neutral characters with unknown motives was met with the greatest amount
of approval. This suggests that simply assigning any type of disposition or motive to a
violent behavior may reduce the readiness with which one accepts the observed act, and
that random violence with no apparent motive or dispositional characteristics may be met
with the least amount of moral repugnance. While previous research on Disposition
Theory indicates that violence committed by liked characters with good motives may
weaken inhibition against violence (Zillmann & Cantor, 1977), the current data suggest
that violence without these contextual features may produce an even stronger tendency
for viewers to behave aggressively when provoked.

Four additional hypotheses also made predictions concerning enjoyment of the

observed clip and attitudes toward perpetrators and targets based on earlier work by

58

 

Zillmann and Bryant (1975). Previous research into the impact of violent reprisal on
attitudes toward violence and observed characters indicated that excessive violence
produces negative attitudes toward perpetrators and the film on the whole, while
appropriate levels of violence would produce favorable attitudes toward both the
perpetrator and the film. Hypotheses concerning attitudes toward the perpetrator were
generally supported, as characters with good motives were liked more than characters
with bad or unknown motives. The hypotheses for enjoyment, however, went totally
unsupported. No differences were detected across sanctioned, unsanctioned, or neutral
motives in terms of the respondents’ reported enjoyment of the clip. This finding may be
an artifact of the genre chosen for the stimulus material (professional wrestling); one
which has a small dedicated fan base and that tends to produce polarized opinions among
viewers.
Post Hoc Analyses

Beyond the planned analyses used to test specific hypotheses and research
questions by comparing responses in particular experimental conditions, additional post
hoc analyses were performed to explore emergent patterns in the data. In order to further
explore hypotheses one and two, a fully-crossed ANOVA procedure was first performed
to examine the impact of disposition and motive on perceptions of appropriateness of the
aggressive behavior in the violent clip. The 3 X 3 ANOVA revealed a main effect for
disposition, F (2, 224) = 7.87, p<.007, n2 = .05. Post Hoc LSD comparisons conducted on
the marginal means for disposition revealed that acts committed by bad characters (M:
2.53, SD: 0.15) were perceived as less appropriate than those committed by neutral

characters (M: 3.18, SD: 0.15), p<.002. No significant main effect was found for

59

._.‘_‘_

‘17— 1' =~. :— my
I

motive, F (2, 224) = 3.43, n.s., nor an interaction effect between disposition and motive
found, F (4, 224) = 2.15, n.s.

In addition to this analysis, a 3 X 3 ANCOVA was performed on acceptance of
observed aggression, controlling for age, sex, and socioeconomic status, as well as for the
personality characteristics of perceived realism, physical aggression, hostility, verbal
aggression, argumentativeness, extroversion, neuroticism, empathy. vigilantism, and
punitiveness. Once again, a main effect for disposition emerged in this analysis, F (2,
222) = 4.38, p<.02, n2 = .04. Additionally, a significant effect was detected for the
covariates of physical aggression (F (1, 222) = 11.05, p<.001, n2 = .05) and for sex (F (1,
222) = 9.39, p<.002, n2 = .05). No effect was found for motive or the interaction between
disposition and motive.

The interaction between disposition and motive may indicate that audiences
generally do not approve of violent reprisal that is committed by characters with
incongruous dispositions and motives. It appears as if the key contextual element in
making these determinations is disposition held toward the perpetrator, as neither main
effects for motive nor an interaction between disposition and motive emerged as
statistically significant.

Next, attitudes toward perpetrators and targets in the observed violent film clip
were further evaluated in terms of social likeability. Hypotheses three and four and
research questions five and six asked how congruity and incongruity between disposition
and motive would affect attitudes toward perpetrator and target. To further explore these
hypotheses and research questions, 3 X 3 ANOVAs were first performed on perpetrator

and target social attractiveness. For violent perpetrators, main effects were found for both

60

I

disposition, F (2, 224) = 8.64, p<.001, n2 =.08, and motive, F (2, 224) = 3.10, p<.05, n2 =
.03. No significant interaction effect was detected for the disposition by motive
interaction, F (4, 224) = 1.18, n.s. Post hoc LSD comparisons performed on the marginal
means for both disposition and motive indicate that perpetrators with positive disposition
(M=3.92, SD=1.01) were liked more than those with neutral (M =3.83, SD=.09) p<.002
or negative dispositions (M =3.37, SD=.75), p<.001. while those with positive motives
(M=3.92, SD=1.01) were also liked more than those with neutral (M =3.60, SD=0.88).
p<.028 or negative motives (M=3.59, SD=0.88), p<.03. (see Table 3).The subsequent

ANCOVA analysis detected a significant main effect for disposition, F (2, 222) = 9.00,

p<.001, 112 = .09, but no main effect for motive and no interaction effect between the two.
In terms of significant personality differences that were predictive of perpetrator
likeability, perceived realism (F = 5.38, p<.02,r]2 = .03) and argumentativeness (F =
4.27, p<.04, n2 = .02), were positively associated with liking of the observed perpetrator.
Males liked the perpetrators more than females (F = 4.56, p<.04, n2 = .02). Based on
these results, it appears as if viewers may strongly dislike good characters with bad
motives, but do not experience such repulsion when bad characters have motives that are

consistent with their disposition.

61

Table 3.
Marginal Means for Perpetrator Likeability

 

Positive Negative Neutral
Disposition: 3.92a 3.36" 3.83“

(1.01) (0.75) (0.92)
Motive: 3.928 3.60b 3.59b

(1.01) (0.88) (0.86)

Note:

Means reported with standard deviations in parentheses.

Comparisons are horizontal only.

Paired with no superscript letter in common differ significantly at p<.05 by LSD test.
In a 3 X 3 AN OVA analysis for targets of violence in the observed film, main

effects were not detected for disposition, F (2, 224) = .25, n.s., nor motive, F (2, 224) =

.59, n.s. on target likeability. However, a significant interaction effect was detected for

disposition and motive, F (4, 224) = 2.91, p<.02, n2 =.05. Targets of violence that were

attacked by good characters were most liked when there was a positive motive, while

targets that were attacked by bad characters were most liked when the perpetrator had

negative motives (see Figure 1).

62

Figure 1.

Target Likeability by

Perpetrator Disposition and Motive

 

 

 

 

 

 

2‘
3 disposmon
,5 __
‘5 bad
91 _. __
59
c neutral
m - a o n
m
2 2.8 good
bad unknown good
motive

This analysis was again repeated in an ANCOVA model, controlling for
individual personality differences. Once again, no main effects were found for perpetrator
disposition or motive on the likeability of the target, but a sizable interaction effect did
emerge, F (2, 222) = 2.89, p<.02, n2 =.06. It should also be noted that physical
aggressiveness (F (l, 222) = 6.01, p<.02, 112 = .03), and argumentativeness (F (1, 222) =
4.58, p<.04, n2 = .02) were also positively related to target likeability. Males liked the

targets of aggression more than females (F (1, 222) = 6.96, p<.03, 112 = .03) (see Table 4).

63

Table 4.
Corrected Means for Target Likeability

 

Positive Negative Neutral
Disposition Disposition Disposition
Positive Motive 3.76 3.23 2.94
(0.24) (0.24) (0.25)
Negative Motive 3.10 3.80 3.55 I
(0.24) (0.24) (0.24) I
Unknown Motive 3.21 3.16 3.47 I
(0.24) (0.25) (0.24) i

Note:
Means reported with standard errors in parentheses

Finally, research questions five and six also asked what impact congruous and
incongruous dispositional and motivational portrayals would have on enjoyment of the
observed clip. A 3 X 3 ANOVA was performed on overall enjoyment of the observed
clip. Main effects were not detected for disposition, F (2, 224) = 1.29, n.s., nor motive, F
(2, 224) = 1.09, n.s. There was also no interaction effect between disposition and motive,
F (4, 224) = 1.07, n.s. The absence of motivational or dispositional influence also held up
under a 3 X 3 ANCOVA, with no significant main effects or interaction between the two.
Based on these findings, it appears as though disposition toward perpetrator and motive
for violence have little or no impact on enjoyment.

With regard to research questions three and four, AN OVA and ANCOVA
analyses performed on subsections of the sample demonstrated no differences between

neutral, congruous, or incongruous contextual presentations of violence. In order to

further explore these critical research questions, a 3 X 3 ANOVA analysis was first
performed on the most acceptable position of violent reprisal. No main effects were
detected for disposition, F (2, 224) = .126, n.s., or motive, F (2, 224) = 1.07, n.s.
However, a significant interaction effect did emerge for the combined effect of
disposition and motive, F (4, 224) = 2.78, p<.03, n2 = .05. The pattern of means across
acceptability for subsequent reprisal suggests an interaction effect between disposition '
and motive that differs across the three dispositional sets. For both good and bad E
characters, ideal reprisals were highest after watching violence that was committed with a

bad motive, and were slightly lower after watching violence committed for normative I

 

reasons. However, a distinctly different pattern is evident for neutral characters. For
characters with neutral dispositions, subsequent indications of ideal reprisal were lowest
after watching violence with bad motives, and highest after viewing aggressive acts with

good motives (see Figure 2).

65

Figure 2.

Most Acceptable Reprisal by

Perpetrator Disposition and Motive

 

8.0

7.51 ,, w '" "

 

7.0

6.5 I

 

Mean most acceptable reprisal

 

 

 

disposition
6.0 I
bad

5'5 ‘ /' 3 neutral

/ .. .. - ..
5.0 good

bad unknow n good
motive

Controlling for demographic and personality variables, main effects on the most
acceptable position of violent reprisal were again not detected for disposition or motive.
The interaction effect between the two was reduced to a non-significant result, though the
degree to which this interaction accounted for the variance in most acceptable position
did not differ greatly from the ANOVA analysis, F ( 2, 222) = 2.24, p<.07, n2 = .04.

One interpretation of these findings is that the interaction between disposition and
motive may lead to some sort of social comparison effect whereby the viewing of a
violent film clip creates a cognitive anchor against which subsequent appraisals of
violence are made. Consistent with the logic offered by Sherif (1962; Sherif & Sherif,

1965), this would once again suggest that contrasts are made between the second

66

observed act and the act that preceded it. As a result, the same observed act of violence
will be found to be more acceptable when juxtaposed against an act containing morally
unacceptable elements than when contrasted with an act that is normatively sanctioned.
This logic does, however, depart from the work of Zillmann (2000) and Raney and
Bryant (2002) in that it moves beyond the assumption that latitudes of moral sanction are
inherently fixed and stable to the notion that the far ranges of acceptability may be
situationally construed and influenced by surrounding stimuli. This suggests that
individuals witnessing an aggressive act with mixed dispositional and motivational
characteristics can experience short-term shifts in their moral reasoning to include the
approval of behaviors normally outside their latitude of acceptance, and raises questions
about the possibility of long-term changes resulting from repeated exposure.
Limitations

Several limitations to the present study can be identified in order to help inform
future research in this area. The first of these concerns the sample used in the current
study, which consisted entirely of college students. Given the age restriction, a different
sample may reveal different outcomes. For example, younger audiences may be more
cognitively malleable and susceptible to aggressive responses.

Additionally, the strength of the disposition induction may be a limiting factor to
the current findings. While it was demonstrated through pre-testing that disposition was
successfully manipulated, close scrutiny of the mean scores for social likeability indicate
that liked and disliked perpetrators deviated from neutral perpetrators by less than two

points on a seven point scale. As a result, some of the findings may be attenuated, and

67

stronger disposition manipulations may lead to stronger observable differences between
groups.

Finally, the failure to include certain personality variables as covariates may limit
our understanding of the role of individual differences on the observed effects. In
particular, the failure of the measurement models for psychoticism and authoritarianism
and their subsequent removal from the analyses limits our understanding of two
potentially important personality characteristics that may moderate the processes under
observation.

Conclusions

The primary focus of the current research was to study the impact of incongruous
presentations of disposition toward perpetrator and motive for violence on the
acceptability of observed violence, enjoyment of the observed film, attitudes toward
victims and perpetrators, and latitudes of acceptance for violent behavior in situations
immediately following exposure. For the most part, the results support previous research
on the independent impact of disposition and motive on audience responses to violence.
Violence committed by bad characters was met with less approval that that committed by
good characters, and bad characters engendered more negative attitudes than did good
characters. Violence committed with bad motives was found to be less approved than that
committed with sanctioned motives, though motive did not have an effect on likeability.

However, further investigation into incongruous combinations of disposition and
motive reveals unexpected findings. First, the fact that violence was most approved
among neutral characters with unknown motives raises concerns that have not previously

been addressed. The results suggest that different types of psychological processes may

68

take place for characters with and without distinct dispositional valences. While
previously discovered findings were replicated comparing characters with positive and
negative motives and dispositions, the impact of violence in neutral contexts was met
with greater approval, indicating that audiences may rely on other cognitive processes
(e.g. other contextual elements) when disposition and motive are absent. The exact nature
of this process is, however, largely unknown.

Further, an examination of the experimental conditions reveals main effects for i
disposition but not for motive in evaluations of observed violence. Based on these results, 1‘

it may be the case that disposition toward perpetrators is a more critical determinant of I

 

acceptance of aggression than the reasons given for aggression. If this is the case, it calls
into question previous research on “justified” violence in which justice was operationally
defined as violence committed by liked characters. In this corpus of research, it may be
disposition that accounts for observed behavioral differences and not the inherent moral
acceptability of the observed act. If this is the case, our understanding of the effects of
“justified” violence on viewer responses may be largely incomplete, and confounded with
already documented literature on Disposition Theory. Consistent with early work by
Kohlberg (1958), consideration of justice as a cognitive function of perceived equality,
disposition, and motive for behavior may better inform us of the impact of these violent
presentations.

Perhaps most alarming is the observed impact of mixed portrayals on subsequent
moral evaluations. While ideal positions on violent retribution remain stable across all
conditions, the range of acceptable behaviors crosses into aggression only after watching

acts committed by positive characters with negative motives. When such acts are

69

associated with positive characters, the current data suggest that violent acts with
negative motives may produce a short term effect on moral evaluations that includes the
acceptability of aggression. As a result, violent content previously thought to be benign
may in fact be problematic if such a short term fluctuation in moral evaluation translates
into differences in behavior. A careful understanding of the process suggested here has

considerable implications for social behavior.

 

St
The findings here suggest that the viewing of violent content with this particular ,"I

set of motivational and dispositional characteristics produces a set of disturbing cognitive ‘-
and behavioral responses. While the immediate impact on the individual is likely to be i

minimal, at its worst the potential for enduring social harm is considerable. In the short-
terrn, exposure can alter the threshold for aggressive reprisal that exists prior to exposure.
Whether it is one that requires extreme or minimal circumstances to justify the use of
aggressive behavior, exposure to portrayalsof liked characters engaging in aggression for
socially non-normative reasons can broaden the acceptance of violence as a means of
conflict resolution.

If provoked soon after such exposure, this momentary attitudinal shift may
promote aggressive behavior a little beyond that which is one’s normal response. In all
likelihood this shift will be fleeting, and its immediate impact trivial. On the other hand,
it is not difficult to imagine more significant problems resulting from a steady diet of this
content. Repeated exposure to these violent portrayals and the recurring transitory shift
that occurs in one’s threshold for aggressive reprisal may lead to a permanent shift in
acceptability of violence and latitudes of violent reprisal. If viewers are constantly

conditioned to believe that a particular level of violence is appropriate under socially

70

non-normative circumstances, the potential for these viewers to routinely engage in
stronger levels of aggressive reprisal is heightened. In this manner, violence portrayed in
the context of liked perpetrators with non-normative motives may, in the long term, lead
to the development of aggressive personality traits. When we consider the prospect for
these changes to occur across the massive audience for violent media, we see a troubling
potential for heightened interpersonal violence, domestic abuse, and destruction of
property. While these portrayals have been dismissed as non-problematic in previous
research, the potential exists for considerable social harm not only in a viewer’s

immediate reactions, but more importantly in terms of habitual behavioral responses.

Further Research

As with any initial inquiry, the findings of the present study present the need for
additional empirical investigation concerning the observations herein and the underlying
processes that may have produced them. First, the chosen stimulus material for the
observed violence was professional wrestling, a genre with unique actor and plot
characteristics. While this genre was chosen because it is one that contains a large
number of incongruous violent portrayals (Lachlan, Tamborini, Skalski, & Westerrnan,
2003), there nonetheless exists the need to verify the observed effects in more
mainstream television content. Thus, further research is called for examining the effects
of congruous and incongruous violent portrayals in mainstream television drama. For
example, the prime time police drama The Shield depicts Los Angeles police and tactical
operations units fighting crime in Southern California. While the main characters are
largely portrayed as likable protagonists, they often resort to forms of violence that

exceed all standards of police procedure in order to intimidate, capture, and even

71

eliminate criminal offenders. They use extreme violence in circumstances that would not
normally dictate strong force, such as face—saving or reputation preserving endeavors.
One can easily think of other prime time and cable dramas (N YPD Blue, The Sopranos,
24, LA. Dragnet, etc) where violent portrayals by liked characters with socially
unacceptable motives for violence are common. The prevalence of these portrayals and
their impact on viewers is, however, largely unknown and begs the need for further

scientific inquiry. Thus, there exists the need for future content analytic research

.- .1-
D

“I. met; “I”:
E

examining the prevalence of congruous and incongruous portrayals of disposition and
motive associated with television violence.

Next, additional research is needed to examine the finding that violence with
socially unsanctioned motives may actually disinhibit aggressive responses if committed
by a liked protagonist. Of all the results reported here, this one offers the most serious
cause for alarm. While there is no evidence in the present research of a short term shift in
ideal response, the level of aggressive retribution one is willing to accept in subsequent
moral evaluations appears higher under circumstances where good guys aggress with
unjust cause. Maybe this stems from a comparison process between initial scenarios and
subsequent observed acts, or perhaps the presentation of a violent situation reduces
dissonance created by exposure to clips with incongruent dispositional themes.
Additional research is needed to replicate the observed shift in latitudes of acceptance,
and investigate the underlying psychological mechanisms driving the observed changes.

Dovetailing from this area of investigation, a need exists for further exploration of
the combined impact of dispositional and motivational features of both the observed clip

and the subsequent evaluation that must be explored. The subsequent behavioral

72

evaluation concerned a conflict scenario involving the behavior of a good character with
sanctioned motives for aggression, based on the knowledge that this condition often
engenders aggressive attitudes (Tamborini & Lachlan, 2003). Responses to different
subsequent scenarios may change contingent upon the contexts in which they take place.
For instance, someone asked to evaluate aggressive responses in a situation in which a
neutral character has no motive for aggression may not provide an opportunity for

dissonance reduction, or may present a social comparison that is not all that different

 

from what has just been observed. Regardless, the combined effect of dispositional and
motivational concerns in both observed violence and in subsequent behavioral ,J
evaluations must be investigated.
Additionally, there exists a need to further explore the role played by individual
personality characteristics in the processes identified in the present research. Of particular
note is trait psychoticism, which was dropped from the analyses due to measurement
problems. Given the substantial corpus of research identifying psychoticism as an
important moderator in the relationship between media use and aggression (e. g. Zillmann
& Weaver, 1997), future research should examine the role of this and other personality
traits.
Finally, the unexpected finding that neutral characters with unknown motives are
met with the least amount of opposition is a troubling one. It may be possible that a
different set of psychological processes takes place with characters that have definite
dispositions and/or motives, than when violence is presented as random and without
apparent reason. If this is the case, then there are unique implications for desensitization

associated with random violence, as opposed to violent presentations that have tangible

73

dispositional and motivational contexts. The potential difference between random and
valence aggression and its effects on audiences is certainly one that begs for future
inquiry.
Summary

The data in the current study present disturbing social implications concerning
forms of violent media content. It suggests that conventional understandings of
“justified” violence as problematic and “unjustified” violence as benign may be limited
and ultimately inaccurate. The data imply that violence committed by liked characters,

regardless of the apparent motive for violence, can facilitate hostile responses and

W'-_‘ J vl—‘fiTfim‘rw

perhaps impact attitudes that govern habitual aggressive behavior. Additionally, random
acts of violence, those which contain no clear dispositional or motivational
considerations, may also be harmful, as they seem to be met with more approval than
seems appropriate. Finally, the specific combination of liked characters committing
aggressive acts for reasons that are normatively unacceptable may be a particularly
problematic in its contribution to attitudes that facilitate aggressive behavioral. As a
result, across the universe of television programming we might expect many more
presentations of violence containing dangerous behavioral models than previously
believed.

The identification of this potentially harmful content calls for further scientific
study to examine presence of this content its potential for influence. Investigating these
issues is needed to inform parents, teachers, and policy makers about media content that
may be psychologically and behaviorally harmful, especially to younger audiences. It is

the hope of this researcher that scholars in the field will continue to investigate the

74

processes initially outlined in this work, in order to help paint a clearer picture of the

complex roles played by disposition and motive in shaping the effect of media violence

on moral reasoning.

75

‘ oc-HAJ'v—w. 71"“; .-

APPENDICES

76

 

APPENDD( A

Consent Forms and Disclosure

Pre-test Consent Form:

TELEVISION AND SOCIAL BELIEFS

You are being asked to participate in a study conducted by the Department of Communication Michigan

State University. The purpose of the study is to examine your beliefs and your media use.

Participation in this study is strictly voluntary and involves filling out this questionnaire and a questionnaire
to be administered in a few weeks. You may skip questions if you want and may stop participation at any

time.

All information you provide will be kept completely confidential. Do not write your name or any other
information anywhere on the form. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by
law. By signing below and returning the questionnaire, you indicate your voluntary agreement to
participate in the study. This form will be kept separate from your survey in order to ensure that your

responses will be kept anonymous.

Contact Dr. Ron Tamborini at 517-355-0178 (tamborin@msu.edu) if you have any questions or concerns
regarding this study. The researchers can answer any questions you may have about the study to help you
decide whether or not to participate. If you have any questions about your role and rights as a subject of
research, feel free to contact Dr. Ashir Kumar, the Chairperson of the University Committee of Research

Involving Human Subjects, at (517) 355-2180.

 

Signing below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

 

Participant’s Signature Date

 

Participant’s Name (Please print clearly)

Thank You

77

Post-test Consent Form:

TELEVISION AND SOCIAL BELIEFS

You are being asked to participate in a study conducted by the Department of Communication Michigan
State University. It is intended to help us understand what social norms are concerning the acceptability of

different behaviors.

:3

W“. nun-u.“ «am-rm main".
A: t. I
d

_ ".1

Participation in this study is strictly voluntary. Today you will be asked to watch a short film clip, followed
by a brief questionnaire. The questionnaire should take no more than 10 minutes to complete. You may

skip questions if you want and may stop participation at any time.

All information you provide will be kept completely confidential. Do not write your name or any other
information anywhere on the form. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by
law. By signing below and returning the questionnaire, you indicate your voluntary agreement to
participate in the study. This form will be kept separate from your survey in order to ensure that your

responses will be kept anonymous.

Contact Dr. Ron Tamborini at 517-355-0178 (tamborin@msu.edu) if you have any questions or concerns
regarding this study. The researchers can answer any questions you may have about the study to help you
decide whether or not to participate. If you have any questions about your role and rights as a subject of
research, feel free to contact Dr. Ashir Kumar, the Chairperson of the University Committee of Research

Involving Human Subjects, at (517) 355-2180.

Signing below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

 

Participant's Signature Date

 

Participant’s Name (Please print clearly)

Thank You

78

Laboratory Disclosure Statement:

TELEVISION AND SOCIAL BELIEFS

Disclosure Statement

This concludes the study you have been participating in. Before you go, please read the
following statement carefully, as it explains the nature of the study and the anticipated results.

You were assigned to one of nine groups that watched an act of aggressive behavior.
Aggressive scenes were portrayed by good, bad, or neutral characters, whose motives were
normative, non-nonnative, or neutral. Those in the neutral groups served as a control groups to
compare scores against. The survey you filled out regarding behaviors that you consider
acceptable or unacceptable was intended to measure your attitudes following exposure to the film
clip. It is the belief of the researchers that differences in good or bad perpetrators with good or
bad motives will have different effects on viewers’ attitudes toward aggressive behavior.
Additionally, it is believed that differences in the way different people view the world may
contribute to the differences associated with dispositions and motives.

Please do not tell others about the nature or intention of the study, as it may interfere with
their responses. Contact Dr. Ron Tamborini at 517-355-0178 (tamborin@msu.edu) if you have
any questions or concerns regarding this study. The researchers can answer any questions you
may have about the study to help you decide whether or not to participate. If you have any
questions about your role and rights as a subject of research, feel free to contact Dr. Ashir Kumar,
the Chairperson of the University Committee of Research Involving Human Subjects, at (517)

355-2180. This form is yours to keep.

Thank you very much for your time and participation.

79

 

APPENDIX B

McCrosky & McCain Interpersonal Attraction Scale

Social Attraction:

I think he could be a friend of mine.

It would be difficult to meet him.

He would not fit in with my circle of friends.
I could never be friends with him.

I’d like to have a friendly chat with him.

Note: *** indicates item dropped.

80

Perp
Factor

Loading

.77
.55
.76

***

.69

Target
Factor
Loading

.76
.35
***
61

.78

“it“? “ '~ FEES?

APPENDIX C

Perception of Victim Deservedness Scale

(Victim name) got what he deserved when he
was attacked by (perpetrator name)

(Perpetrator name) was too brutal in the way he
attacked (victim name)

People like (victim name) should get beaten that
badly under those circumstances

The actions of (perpetrator name) went too far.

8]

Factor
Loading

.76

.67

.62

.80

w“‘mibfil—u .- f?
1. - ' . ' '
‘I « :-‘*.;u

1. '.

APPENDIX D

Disposition and Motive Inductions
Positive Disposition-Positive Motive:

This page contains information designed to better help you understand the characters and
events that are taking place in the film clip you are about to see. Please read this
information carefully. When you are done, please wait until everyone has finished. We
will then watch the first film clip. Following the film clip you will be asked a series of
questions.

Triple H is a well-known character generally thought of as an average performer
within the industry. Some people like him, some don’t, but very few seem to feel strongly
one way or the other. He has been a successful character with a long history of taking
center stage through his on-air talents. His reputation as a technically solid athlete has led
him to play a major role in many television shows of this type. Throughout the industry
he is known for his unusual combination of high-flying acrobatic abilities and pure
strength. He tends to become a more formidable opponent as time goes on. Triple H is
somewhat reclusive in his private life. His peers admit that they know very little about his
offstage personality. He tends to keep to himself and live quietly when the cameras are
turned off. Little is known about his family, except that he lives with his wife in a small
suburban town.

Rob Van Dam is a well-known character within the industry. He has gained
popularity for his attempts to promote fair play and clean competition in a sport known
for being corrupt. In fact, he is known for his repeated attempts to support and help other
performers even on occasions when it was a disadvantage to him. His real-life story is as
highly regarded as his on-screen personality. He has been married for over twelve years
and is the devoted father of two young boys. The former construction worker spent years
struggling to support his family financially before getting his first break in the sport.
Since then, he has dedicated himself to giving back to his community. Over the course of
the last five years, he has donated over two million dollars to a soup kitchen he founded
in his hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan, helping the less fortunate get back on their
feet.

Prior to this scene, we learn that Vince McMahon, owner of the company that
controls professional wrestling, told Rob Van Dam that TV ratings are falling. In order to
improve ratings, McMahon wants Van Dam to commit a shocking act of violence against
the unsuspecting Triple H. Van Dam refuses, but McMahon says he will fire Triple H
along with many other wrestlers and staff people unless Van Dam does this. Van Dam
becomes totally enraged. This type of behavior is against his personal beliefs, but others
will suffer if he doesn’t do it. He hates himself because he doesn’t know what else to do.
He is furious with the situation, but knows he must do this for everybody’s good.

We are now about to see Triple H enter the ring to face an unknown opponent.

Please do not turn the page until the film clip has been shown.

82

'n._‘

’ “rm ..}1 M‘ifi‘am '—

‘4‘».

a 1"
.

Positive Disposition-Negative Motive:

This page contains information designed to better help you understand the characters and
events that are taking place in the film clip you are about to see. Please read this
information carefully. When you are done, please wait until everyone has finished. We
will then watch the first film clip. Following the film clip you will be asked a series of
questions.

Triple H is a well-known character generally thought of as an average performer
within the industry. Some people like him, some don’t, but very few seem to feel strongly
one way or the other. He has been a successful character with a long history of taking
center stage through his on-air talents. His reputation as a technically solid athlete has led
him to play a major role in many television shows of this type. Throughout the industry
he is known for his unusual combination of high-flying acrobatic abilities and pure
strength. He tends to become a more formidable opponent as time goes on. Triple H is
somewhat reclusive in his private life. His peers admit that they know very little about his
offstage personality. He tends to keep to himself and live quietly when the cameras are
turned off. Little is known about his family, except that he lives with his wife in a small
suburban town.

Rob Van Dam is a well-known character within the industry. He has gained
popularity for his attempts to promote fair play and clean competition in a sport known
for being corrupt. In fact, he is known for his repeated attempts to support and help other
performers even on occasions when it was a disadvantage to him. His real-life story is as
highly regarded as his on-screen personality. He has been married for over twelve years
and is the devoted father of two young boys. The former construction worker spent years
struggling to support his family financially before getting his first break in the sport.
Since then, he has dedicated himself to giving back to his community. Over the course of
the last five years, he has donated over two million dollars to a soup kitchen he founded
in his hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan, helping the less fortunate get back on their
feet.

Prior to this scene, Rob Van Dam has been in a discussion with some other
wrestlers. We have found out that Rob Van Dam wants to become more respected. He
believes that he would gain great respect from the other characters if he beat-up
somebody in public, and that this respect would help him get a shot at the heavyweight
title belt. Another character mentions Triple H, who isn’t with the group at the time. Rob
Van Dam starts talking about how he plans to destroy Triple H so he can get the greater
notoriety he wants. He begins to brag to the other characters about what he is going to do
to Triple H when he sees him.

We are now about to see Triple H enter the ring to face an unknown opponent.

Please do not turn the page until the film clip has been shown.

83

Positive Disposition-Unknown Motive:

This page contains information designed to better help you understand the characters and
events that are taking place in the film clip you are about to see. Please read this
information carefully. When you are done, please wait until everyone has finished. We
will then watch the film clip. Following the film clip you will be asked a series of
questions.

Triple H is a well-known character generally thought of as an average performer
within the industry. Some people like him, some don’t, but very few seem to feel strongly
one way or the other. He has been a successful character with a long history of taking
center stage through his on-air talents. His reputation as a technically solid athlete has led
him to play a major role in many television shows of this type. Throughout the industry
he is known for his unusual combination of high-flying acrobatic abilities and pure .
strength. He tends to become a more formidable opponent as time goes on. Triple H is ._
somewhat reclusive in his private life. His peers admit that they know very little about his ‘
offstage personality. He tends to keep to himself and live quietly when the cameras are
turned off. Little is known about his family, except that he lives with his wife in a small
suburban town. a

 

Rob Van Dam is a well-known character within the industry. He has gained
popularity for his attempts to promote fair play and clean competition in a sport known
for being corrupt. In fact, he is known for his repeated attempts to support and help other
performers even on occasions when it was a disadvantage to him. His real-life story is as
highly regarded as his on-screen personality. He has been married for over twelve years
and is the devoted father of two young boys. The former construction worker spent years
struggling to support his family financially before getting his first break in the sport.
Since then, he has dedicated himself to giving back to his community. Over the course of
the last five years, he has donated over two million dollars to a soup kitchen he founded
in his hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan, helping the less fortunate get back on their
feet.

Rob Van Dam and Triple H have a heated rivalry that goes back a number of
years. In recent weeks there has been an exceptional amount of friction and animosity
between the two. The source of this most recent hostility is completely unknown to those
on the outside. It seems that one of them has suffered some sort of injustice at the hands
of the other, but no one is really sure who has been wronged or in what way. It is difficult
to tell if the events that follow show another unjustified act or a justified act of retaliation.
All we really know is that there is a lot of tension between them right now.

We are now about to see Triple H enter the ring to face an unknown opponent.

Please do not turn the page until the film clip has been shown.

84

Negative Disposition-Positive Motive:

This page contains information designed to better help you understand the characters and
events that are taking place in the film clip you are about to see. Please read this
information carefully. When you are done, please wait until everyone has finished. We
will then watch the first film clip. Following the film clip you will be asked a series of
questions.

Triple H is a well-known character generally thought of as an average performer
within the industry. Some people like him, some don’t, but very few seem to feel strongly
one way or the other. He has been a successful character with a long history of taking
center stage through his on-air talents. His reputation as a technically solid athlete has led
him to play a major role in many television shows of this type. Throughout the industry
he is known for his unusual combination of high-flying acrobatic abilities and pure
strength. He tends to become a more formidable opponent as time goes on. Triple H is
somewhat reclusive in his private life. His peers admit that they know very little about his
offstage personality. He tends to keep to himself and live quietly when the cameras are
turned off. Little is known about his family, except that he lives with his wife in a small
suburban town.

1 I: i"

Rob Van Dam is an equally well-known character, but with a different reputation
in the industry. His television personality is widely despised by others in the sport. He is
generally acknowledged by his peers as a detestable character that will use any means to
get ahead of the competition. In the past, his corrupt behavior has resulted in deliberate
injury to other performers in order to upstage them. Rob Van Dam’s offstage life is also
rather checkered. Reports portray him as a reckless youth who was constantly in trouble
with the law, and legal trouble has continued to haunt him in his adult life. His legal
problems have included a conviction for drug possession in the state of California, and
pleading no contest to charges of sexually assaulting a 12 year old minor. Recent charges
have also been filed accusing him of intention to distribute illegal steroids, along with
allegations of spousal abuse by his wife of two years.

Prior to this scene, we learn that Vince McMahon, owner of the company that
controls professional wrestling, told Rob Van Dam that TV ratings are falling. In order to
improve ratings, McMahon wants Van Dam to commit a shocking act of violence against
the unsuspecting Triple H. Van Dam refuses, but McMahon says he will fire Triple H
along with many other wrestlers and staff people unless Van Dam does this. Van Dam
becomes totally enraged. This type of behavior is against his personal beliefs, but others
will suffer if he doesn’t do it. He hates himself because he doesn’t know what else to do.
He is furious with the situation, but knows he must do this for everybody’s good.

We are now about to see Triple H enter the ring to face an unknown opponent.

Please do not turn the page until the film clip has been shown.

85

Negative Disposition-Negative Motive

This page contains information designed to better help you understand the characters and
events that are taking place in the film clip you are about to see. Please read this
information carefully. When you are done, please wait until everyone has finished. We
will then watch the first film clip. Following the film clip you will be asked a series of
questions.

Triple H is a well-known character generally thought of as an average performer
within the industry. Some people like him, some don’t, but very few seem to feel strongly
one way or the other. He has been a successful character with a long history of taking
center stage through his on-air talents. His reputation as a technically solid athlete has led
him to play a major role in many television shows of this type. Throughout the industry
he is known for his unusual combination of high-flying acrobatic abilities and pure
strength. He tends to become a more formidable opponent as time goes on. Triple H is
somewhat reclusive in his private life. His peers admit that they know very little about his
offstage personality. He tends to keep to himself and live quietly when the cameras are
turned off. Little is known about his family, except that he lives with his wife in a small
suburban town.

Rob Van Dam is an equally well-known character, but with a different reputation
in the industry. His television personality is widely despised by others in the sport. He is
generally acknowledged by his peers as a detestable character that will use any means to
get ahead of the competition. In the past, his corrupt behavior has resulted in deliberate
injury to other performers in order to upstage them. Rob Van Dam’s offstage life is also
rather checkered. Reports portray him as a reckless youth who was constantly in trouble
with the law, and legal trouble has continued to haunt him in his adult life. His legal
problems have included a conviction for drug possession in the state of California, and
pleading no contest to charges of sexually assaulting a 12 year old minor. Recent charges
have also been filed accusing him of intention to distribute illegal steroids, along with
allegations of spousal abuse by his wife of two years.

Prior to this scene, Rob Van Dam has been in a discussion with some other
wrestlers. We have found out that Rob Van Dam wants to become more respected. He
believes that he would gain great respect from the other characters if he beat-up
somebody in public, and that this respect would help him get a shot at the heavyweight
title belt. Another character mentions Triple H, who isn’t with the group at the time. Rob
Van Dam starts talking about how he plans to destroy Triple H so he can get the greater
notoriety he wants. He begins to brag to the other characters about what he is going to do
to Triple H when he sees him.

We are now about to see Triple H enter the ring to face an unknown opponent.

Please do not turn the page until the film clip has been shown.

86

Negative Disposition-Unknown Motive:

This page contains information designed to better help you understand the characters and
events that are taking place in the film clip you are about to see. Please read this
information carefully. When you are done, please wait until everyone has finished. We
will then watch the film clip. Following the film clip you will be asked a series of
questions.

Triple H is a well-known character generally thought of as an average performer
within the industry. Some people like him, some don’t, but very few seem to feel strongly
one way or the other. He has been a successful character with a long history of taking
center stage through his on-air talents. His reputation as a technically solid athlete has led
him to play a major role in many television shows of this type. Throughout the industry
he is known for his unusual combination of high-flying acrobatic abilities and pure
strength. He tends to become a more formidable opponent as time goes on. Triple H is
somewhat reclusive in his private life. His peers admit that they know very little about his
offstage personality. He tends to keep to himself and live quietly when the cameras are
turned off. Little is known about his family, except that he lives with his wife in a small
suburban town.

Rob Van Dam is an equally well-known character, but with a different reputation
in the industry. His television personality is widely despised by others in the sport. He is
generally acknowledged by his peers as a detestable character that will use any means to
get ahead of the competition. In the past, his corrupt behavior has resulted in deliberate
injury to other performers in order to upstage them. Rob Van Dam’s offstage life is also
rather checkered. Reports portray him as a reckless youth who was constantly in trouble
with the law, and legal trouble has continued to haunt him in his adult life. His legal
problems have included a conviction for drug possession in the state of California, and
pleading no contest to charges of sexually assaulting a 12 year old minor. Recent charges
have also been filed accusing him of intention to distribute illegal steroids, along with
allegations of spousal abuse by his wife of two years.

Rob Van Dam and Triple H have a heated rivalry that goes back a number of
years. In recent weeks there has been an exceptional amount of friction and animosity
between the two. The source of this most recent hostility is completely unknown to those
on the outside. It seems that one of them has suffered some sort of injustice at the hands
of the other, but no one is really sure who has been wronged or in what way. It is difficult
to tell if the events that follow show another unjustified act or a justified act of retaliation.
All we really know is that there is a lot of tension between them right now.

We are now about to see Triple H enter the ring to face an unknown opponent.

Please do not turn the page until the film clip has been shown.

87

Neutral Disposition-Positive Motive:

This page contains information designed to better help you understand the characters and
events that are taking place in the film clip you are about to see. Please read this
information carefully. When you are done, please wait until everyone has finished. We
will then watch the first film clip. Following the film clip you will be asked a series of
questions.

Triple H is a well-known character generally thought of as an average performer
within the industry. Some people like him, some don’t, but very few seem to feel strongly
one way or the other. He has been a successful character with along history of taking
center stage through his on-air talents. His reputation as a technically solid athlete has led
him to play a major role in many television shows of this type. Throughout the industry
he is known for his unusual combination of high-flying acrobatic abilities and pure
strength. He tends to become a more formidable opponent as time goes on. Triple H is
somewhat reclusive in his private life. His peers admit that they know very little about his
offstage personality. He tends to keep to himself and live quietly when the cameras are
turned off. Little is known about his family, except that he lives with his wife in a small
suburban town.

Rob Van Dam is an equally well-known character with a very similar reputation
to Triple H. People throughout the industry seem to have mixed feelings about him, but
no one seems to like or dislike him all that much. Like Triple H, be is known for his
successes and his track record of exciting the fans with his abilities. His strong and
consistent athletic talents have earned him a lot of air time. While not quite as strong as
Triple H, be is more talented when it comes to acrobatic ability. Much like Triple H, he is
someone that you want to defeat early, as he seems to get more determined when he takes
a lot of punishment. Rob Van Dam keeps a close circle of friends, and not many of his
coworkers know very much about him. He lives a quiet life offstage, where he prefers to
spend his spare time relaxing with his family in more private settings.

Prior to this scene, we learn that Vince McMahon, owner of the company that
controls professional wrestling, told Rob Van Dam that TV ratings are falling. In order to
improve ratings, McMahon wants Van Dam to commit a shocking act of violence against
the unsuspecting Triple H. Van Dam refuses, but McMahon says he will fire Triple H
along with many other wrestlers and staff people unless Van Dam does this. Van Dam
becomes totally enraged. This type of behavior is against his personal beliefs, but others
will suffer if he doesn’t do it. He hates himself because he doesn’t know what else to do.
He is furious with the situation, but knows he must do this for everybody’s good.

We are now about to see Triple H enter the ring to face an unknown opponent.

Please do not turn the page until the film clip has been shown.

88

Neutral Disposition-Negative Motive

This page contains information designed to better help you understand the characters and
events that are taking place in the film clip you are about to see. Please read this
information carefully. When you are done, please wait until everyone has finished. We
will then watch the first film clip. Following the film clip you will be asked a series of
questions.

Triple H is a well-known character generally thought of as an average performer
within the industry. Some people like him, some don’t, but very few seem to feel strongly
one way or the other. He has been a successful character with a long history of taking
center stage through his on-air talents. His reputation as a technically solid athlete has led
him to play a major role in many television shows of this type. Throughout the industry
he is known for his unusual combination of high-flying acrobatic abilities and pure
strength. He tends to become a more formidable opponent as time goes on. Triple H is
somewhat reclusive in his private life. His peers admit that they know very little about his
offstage personality. He tends to keep to himself and live quietly when the cameras are
turned off. Little is known about his family, except that he lives with his wife in a small
suburban town.

Rob Van Dam is an equally well-known character with a very similar reputation
to Triple H. People throughout the industry seem to have mixed feelings about him, but
no one seems to like or dislike him all that much. Like Triple H, be is known for his
successes and his track record of exciting the fans with his abilities. His strong and
consistent athletic talents have earned him a lot of air time. While not quite as strong as
Triple H, be is more talented when it comes to acrobatic ability. Much like Triple H, he is
someone that you want to defeat early, as he seems to get more determined when he takes
a lot of punishment. Rob Van Dam keeps a close circle of friends, and not many of his
coworkers know very much about him. He lives a quiet life offstage, where he prefers to
spend his spare time relaxing with his family in more private settings.

Prior to this scene, Rob Van Dam has been in a discussion with some other
wrestlers. We have found out that Rob Van Dam wants to become more respected. He
believes that he would gain great respect from the other characters if he beat-up
somebody in public, and that this respect would help him get a shot at the heavyweight
title belt. Another character mentions Triple H, who isn’t with the group at the time. Rob
Van Dam starts talking about how he plans to destroy Triple H so he can get the greater
notoriety he wants. He begins to brag to the other characters about what he is going to do
to Triple H when he sees him.

We are now about to see Triple H enter the ring to face an unknown opponent.

Please do not turn the page until the film clip has been shown.

89

Neutral Disposition-Unknown Motive:

This page contains information designed to better help you understand the characters and
events that are taking place in the film clip you are about to see. Please read this
information carefully. When you are done, please wait until everyone has finished. We
will then watch the film clip. Following the film clip you will be asked a series of
questions.

Triple H is a well-known character generally thought of as an average performer
within the industry. Some people like him, some don’t, but very few seem to feel strongly
one way or the other. He has been a successful character with a long history of taking
center stage through his on-air talents. His reputation as a technically solid athlete has led
him to play a major role in many television shows of this type. Throughout the industry
he is known for his unusual combination of high-flying acrobatic abilities and pure
strength. He tends to become a more formidable opponent as time goes on. Triple H is
somewhat reclusive in his private life. His peers admit that they know very little about his
offstage personality. He tends to keep to himself and live quietly when the cameras are
turned off. Little is known about his family, except that he lives with his wife in a small
suburban town.

Rob Van Dam is an equally well-known character with a very similar reputation
to Triple H. People throughout the industry seem to have mixed feelings about him, but
no one seems to like or dislike him all that much. Like Triple H, be is known for his
successes and his track record of exciting the fans with his abilities. His strong and
consistent athletic talents have earned him a lot of air time. While not quite as strong as
Triple H, he is more talented when it comes to acrobatic ability. Much like Triple H, he is
someone that you want to defeat early, as he seems to get more determined when he takes
a lot of punishment. Rob Van Dam keeps a close circle of friends, and not many of his
coworkers know very much about him. He lives a quiet life offstage, where he prefers to
spend his spare time relaxing with his family in more private settings.

Rob Van Dam and Triple H have a heated rivalry that goes back a number of
years. In recent weeks there has been an exceptional amount of friction and animosity
between the two. The source of this most recent hostility is completely unknown to those
on the outside. It seems that one of them has suffered some sort of injustice at the hands
of the other, but no one is really sure who has been wronged or in what way. It is difficult
to tell if the events that follow show another unjustified act or a justified act of retaliation.
All we really know is that there is a lot of tension between them right now.

We are now about to see Triple H enter the ring to face an unknown opponent.

Please do not turn the page until the film clip has been shown.

90

APPENDIX E

Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire

Hostility:

When people are especially nice,
I wonder what they want.

I am suspicious of overly friendly strangers.
Other pe0ple always seem to get the breaks.

I wonder why sometimes
I feel so bitter about things.

I am sometimes eaten up with jealousy.

At times I feel
I have gotten a raw deal out of life.

I know that “friends”
talk about me behind my back.

Physical Aggression:

Given enough provocation,
I may hit another person.

If somebody hits me, I hit back

I can think of no good reason
for ever hitting a person.

I get into fights a little more than
the average person.

Once in a while I can’t control
the urge to strike another person.

There are people who pushed me so far
that we came to blows.

91

Factor
Loading

.44

.40
.61

.70

.51

.55

.54

.76

.61

.61

.56

.50

.42

l have become so mad that .60
Ihave broken things
1 have threatened people I know. .73

If I have to resort to violence
to protect my rights, I will.

Verbal Aggression:

My friends say that I'm .73
somewhat argumentative

Ioften find myself disagreeing with people. .68
When people annoy me, .69
Imay tell them what I think of them.

Itell my friends openly .55
when I disagree with them.

I can't help getting into arguments
when people disagree with me.

Argumentativeness:
.46

I flare up quickly but get over it quickly.
I am an even-tempered person. .57

I sometimes feel like ***

a powder keg ready to explode.

When frustrated, I let my irritation show. .43
Some of my friends think I'm a hothead. .78
Sometimes I fly off the handle for no good reason. .89

I have trouble controlling my temper .83

Note: * * * indicates item dropped.

92

1’

APPENDIX F

Revised Eyesenck Personality Inventory

Neuroticism:

Does your mood often go up and down?

Do you ever feel “just miserable” for no reason?
Are you an irritable person?

Are your feelings easily hurt?

Do you often feel “fed-up”?

Would you call yourself a nervous person?

Are you a worrier?

Would you call yourself tense or “highly—strung?”

Do you worry too long after an embarrassing experience?

Do you suffer from “nerves?”

Do you often feel lonely?

Are you often troubled about feelings of guilt?

93

Factor
Loading

Mat:
.47
.57
Hz:
.54
.62
.56

.60

.49

.54

.54

Extroversion:

Are you a talkative person?

Are you rather lively?

Do you enjoy meeting new people?

Can you usually let yourself go and enjoy yourself at
a lively party?

Do you usually take the initiative in making new friends?

Can you easily get some life into a rather dull party?

Do you like mixing with people?

Do you like plenty of hustle and excitement around you?

Do other people think of you as being very lively?

Can you get a party going?

Do you tend to keep in the background on social occasions?

Are you mostly quiet when you are with other people?

Note: *** indicates item dropped.

94

.56

.55

.55

.50

***

***

.46

.59

.58

.72

.61

APPENDIX G

Raney & Bryant Social Justice Scale

Empathy:

I sometimes try to understand my friends better
by imagining how things look from their perspective.

I believe there are two sides to every question
and I try to look at them both.

When I’m upset at someone I usually try to put myself
in their shoes for awhile.

I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less
fortunate than myself.

I sometimes don’t feel very sorry for people who
are having problems.

Before criticizing someone, I try to imagine how I’d
feel if I were in their place.

Other people’s misfortunes do not disturb
me a great deal.

I sometimes find it difficult to see things from
the other person’s point of view.

I am often touched by things that I see happen.

I try to look at everyone’s side of a disagreement before
I make a decision.

I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person.

95

Factor

Loading

.67

.58

.64

.54

***

.67

.50

.58

.77

.54

Vigilantism:

Victims of crime and/or their families should be
allowed to determine how long the criminal should be in jail.

If someone is murdered and a family member later has
an opportunity to physically harm the assailant, he/she should
have the right to do so.

No punishment inflicted by a private citizen is ever too
severe for a murderer.

When I hear that a victim’s family has gotten revenge on
a criminal, I feel that justice is finally served.

If someone’s child is sexually assaulted and a
parent later has an opportunity to physically harm
the assailant, he/she should have the right to do so.

Justice is served only after the victim and/or the
victim’s family is/are satisfied.

If someone is car-jacked and later has an opportunity
to physically harm the assailant, he/she should have
the right to do so.

Victims should have a say-so in the punishment of a
criminal because only they know what it is like to be
wronged by that individual.

The law is designed to let criminals off too easily; for
that reason, I think private citizens should take action themselves

No punishment inflicted by a police officer during
the arrest of a spousal abuser is ever too severe.

I favor a criminal justice system where the victim’s
family is allowed to determine the punishment for the

criminal.

No punishment inflicted by a police officer during the
arrest of a murderer is ever too severe.

96

.59

.77

.55

.70

.71

.77

.71

.77

.55

.88

***

If a private citizen has an opportunity to enact justice
on a criminal before law enforcement agents arrive,
he/she should have the right to do so.

Victims of crime and/or their families should be
allowed to sentence criminals.

Since too many criminals get off on technicalities,
private citizens should bring about justice in situations
if they have a chance.

Private citizens acting alone can better ensure that a
criminal gets what he/she deserves than they can serving
on a jury.

Punitiveness:

Capital punishment is morally wrong.

The death penalty is a good idea since it prevents the criminal
from harming anyone else.

If an individual intentionally kills someone
(except for in self-defense), he/she should be put to death.

Punishment for a crime should involve physical pain.

The more horrific the crime, the more horrific
the punishment should be.

The death penalty is the only way to ensure that
a murderer will never murder again; for that reason,
I favor the death penalty.

Note: *** indicates item dropped.

97

***

***

.65

.82

.76

.60

.91

***

 

APPENDIX H

Perceived Realism Scale

Television presents things as they really are in life.

IfI see something on TV, I can’t be sure it really is that way.

TV lets me really see how other people live.

TV does not show life as it really is.

Television lets me see what happens in other places as if I was really there.

Note: *** indicates item dropped.

98

Factor
Loading

.77

.75

***

.60

.65

APPENDIX I

Tamborini & Lachlan Latitude of Acceptable Violent Reprisal Measure

We would like you to judge the acceptability of behavior described in the following
situation. Please read the following account as if you had seen it occur. Think about the
situation and the two people involved in the interaction that is described.

After you have read the description below, turn to the first page in the answer booklet.
Read the instructions there and respond in the described manner. You will be asked to
give your opinion about the acceptability of different behaviors described. Imagine that
you were a witness to the event portrayed. You are not involved in it in nay way, you just
happened to see it. What would you think about the different behaviors described?

In order to help you remember the interaction described while you respond to the
questions in the answer booklet, we have copied the description given below and
included it on the page opposite each set of questions. First read the description here.
Then open the booklet and answer the questions on the following pages. A copy of the
interaction described will be available on the accompanying page while you respond to
the questions. Here is the situation we want you to think about.

Imagine that you observe the following event:

Paul, one of the most likable people you could ever meet at school,
walks into a room and sees Dave, a well known and widely despised
campus bully. The last time they met, Dave threatened to knock Paul
unconscious. Since Dave had always followed through with similar
threats to others, Paul was sure that once Dave saw him he would
make good on this threat. Paul wanted to protect himself. With this in
mind, Paul decided to... .

99

 

 

Below is a list of possible things that Paul might do under the conditions described. Please read all the

statements carefully first before making any marks on this page.

Now that you have carefully read all the statements, place a check next to the an; that you think is

the ms; acceptgble thing for him to do in the situation described. When you finish, turn to the next page.

 

Paul decides to do something he knew would

1.

10.

11.

12.

13.

give physical and emotional support to Dave that not only
had lasting benefit, but would surely give great joy to both
him and his family

give physical and emotional support to Dave that not only
had lasting benefit, but would surely give him great joy

give physical and emotional support to Dave that not only
had lasting benefit, but could potentially give him great joy

give both physical and emotional support to Dave that had
lasting benefit

give emotional support to Dave that had lasting benefit and
physical support that was only temporary

give both physical and emotional support to Dave that was
only temporary, and had no potential for lasting benefit of

anytype

give emotional support to Dave that was only temporary.
and had no potential for physical benefit of any type

have no physical or emotional impact on Dave

cause emotional harm to Dave that was only temporarily
disabling, and had no potential to cause physical harm of

any type

cause both physical and emotional harm to Dave that was
only temporarily disabling, and had no potential to cause
permanent harm of any type

cause physical harm to Dave that was only temporarily
disabling but emotional harm that was permanently
disabling

cause both physical and emotional harm to Dave that was
permanently disabling, but had no potential to result in
death

cause both physical and emotional harm to Dave that was
permanently disabling, and could potentially cause death

. cause certain death. but would not deface Dave's corpse

. cause certain death. and mutilate Dave‘s corpse

100

10.

most acceptable

most acceptable

most acceptable

most acceptable

most acceptable

most acceptable

most acceptable

most acceptable

__ most acceptable

most acceptable

most acceptable

most acceptable

most acceptable

most acceptable

most acceptable

Below is the same list of possible things that Paul might do under these conditions. Once again.
think carefully first before making any marks on this page.

This time, in addition to the most acceptable behavior. we would like you to check next to a_ll of the
things you think are also acceptable in the situation described. When you finish. turn to the next page.

Paul decides to do something he knew would

1.

give physical and emotional support to Dave that not only
had lasting benefit. but would surely give great joy to both
him and his family

give physical and emotional support to Dave that not only
had lasting benefit, but would surely give him great joy

give physical and emotional support to Dave that not only
had lasting benefit. but could potentially give him greatjoy

give both physical and emotional support to Dave that had
lasting benefit

give emotional support to Dave that had lasting benefit and
physical support that was only temporary

give both physical and emotional support to Dave that was
only temporary, and had no potential for lasting benefit of

any type

give emotional support to Dave that was only temporary.
and had no potential for physical benefit of any type

have no physical or emotional impact on Dave

cause emotional harm to Dave that was only temporarily
disabling. and had no potential to cause physical harm of

anytype

. cause both physical and emotional harm to Dave that was

only temporarily disabling. and had no potential to cause
permanent harm of any type

. cause physical harm to Dave that was only temporarily

disabling but emotional harm that was permanently
disabling

cause both physical and emotional harm to Dave that was
permanently disabling. but had no potential to result in
death

. cause both physical and emotional harm to Dave that was

permanently disabling. and could potentially cause death

. cause certain death. but would not deface Dave's corpse

. cause certain death. and mutilate Dave's corpse

101

acceptable

acceptable

acceptable

acceptable

acceptable

acceptable

acceptable

acceptable

acceptable

acceptable

acceptable

acceptable

acceptable

acceptable

acceptable

 

The statements listed below are the same as those on the two preceding pages. Please read all
the statements again first before making any marks on this page.

Now that you have read the statements again, place a check next to the one that you think is

the most objectionable thing for him to do in the situation described. When you finish. turn to the next page.

Paul decides to do something he knew would

give physical and emotional support to Dave that not only
had lasting benefit. but would surely give great joy to both
him and his family

give physical and emotional support to Dave that not only
had lasting benefit. but would surely give him great joy

give physical and emotional support to Dave that not only
had lasting benefit. but could potentially give him great joy

give both physical and emotional support to Dave that had
lasting benefit

give emotional support to Dave that had lasting benefit and
physical support that was only temporary

give both physical and emotional support to Dave that was
only temporary, and had no potential for lasting benefit of
any type

give emotional support to Dave that was only temporary.
and had no potential for physical benefit of any type

have no physical or emotional impact on Dave

cause emotional harm to Dave that was only temporarily
disabling. and had no potential to cause physical harm of

anytype

. cause both physical and emotional harm to Dave that was

only temporarily disabling. and had no potential to cause
permanent harm of any type

. cause physical harm to Dave that was only temporarily

disabling but emotional harm that was permanently
disabling

cause both physical and emotional harm to Dave that was
permanently disabling. but had no potential to result in
death

. cause both physical and emotional harm to Dave that was

permanently disabling. and could potentially cause death

. cause certain death. but would not deface Dave‘s corpse

. cause certain death. and mutilate Dave's corpse

102

I‘J

'Jt

most objectionable

most objectionable

most objectionable

most objectionable

most objectionable

most objectionable

most objectionable

most objectionable

most objectionable

most objectionable

most objectionable

most objectionable

most objectionable

most objectionable

most objectionable

The statements listed below are the same as those on the preceding pages. Once again, think carefully first before

making any marks on this page.

This time, in addition to the most objectionable behavior, we want you to check all of the things

you think are also objectionable in the situation described. When you finish. close the survey and wait.

Paul decides to do something he knew would

l.

10

10.

give physical and emotional support to Dave that not only
had lasting benefit. but would surely give great joy to both
him and his family

give physical and emotional support to Dave that not only
had lasting benefit. but would surely give him great joy

give physical and emotional support to Dave that not only
had lasting benefit. but could potentially give him greatjoy

give both physical and emotional support to Dave that had
lasting benefit

give emotional support to Dave that had lasting benefit and
physical support that was only temporary

give both physical and emotional support to Dave that was
only temporary. and had no potential for lasting benefit of
anytype

give emotional support to Dave that was only temporary.
and had no potential for physical benefit of any type

have no physical or emotional impact on Dave

cause emotional harm to Dave that was only temporarily
disabling, and had no potential to cause physical harm of

anytype

cause both physical and emotional harm to Dave that was
only temporarily disabling. and had no potential to cause
permanent harm of any type

. cause physical harm to Dave that was only temporarily

disabling but emotional harm that was permanently
disabling

. cause both physical and emotional harm to Dave that was

permanently disabling. but had no potential to result in
death

. cause both physical and emotional harm to Dave that was

permanently disabling. and could potentially cause death

. cause certain death. but would not deface Dave's corpse

. cause certain death. and mutilate Dave's corpse

19

DJ

10.

ll.

objectionable

objectionable

objectionable

objectionable

objectionable

objectionable

objectionable

objectionable

objectionable

objectionable

objectionable

objectionable

objectionable

objectionable

objectionable

APPENDIX J

Raney Media Enjoyment Scale

Factor

Loading
Exciting .86
Suspenseful .81
Good .94
Well performed .58
How much do you enjoy this genre? .68
Overall, how much did you enjoy this film? ***
How much would you like to see the rest of ***
this episode?
How likely would you be to watch this genre ***

on your own?

Note: *** indicates item dro ed.
PP

104

REFERENCES

Basil, M. D. (1996). The use of student samples in communication
research. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 40, 431-440.

Basil, M. D., Brown, W. J. & Bocamea, M. C. (2002). Differences in
univariate values versus multivariate relationships: Findings from a study of
Diana, Princess of Wales. Human Communication Research, 28, 501-514.

Bentham, J. (1948). A Fragment on Government and an Introduction to
the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Berkowitz, L. (1962). Aggression.“ A social psychological analysis. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Berkowitz, L., & Geen, R. G. (1967). Stimulus qualities of the target of
aggression: A further study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 71—80.

Berkowitz, L., & Powers, P. C. (1979). Effects of timing and justification of

witnessed aggression on the observers' punitiveness. Journal of Research in Personality,
13, 71-80.

Berkowitz, L., & Rawlings, E. (1963). Effects of film violence on inhibitions
against subsequent aggression. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 405-412.

Buss, A.H., & Perry, MP. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459.

Campbell, J. (1996). Professional wrestling: Why the bad guys win. Journal of
American Culture. 19, 127-140.

Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The Measurement of Moral Judgement (Vol.
1). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Eagly, A. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. New York,
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Eyesenck, S.B.G., Eyesenck, H.J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the
psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Diflerences. 6 , 21-29.

105

Felson, R. B., & Ribner, S. (1981). An attributional approach to accounts and
sanctions for criminal violence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 137-142.

Geen, R. G. (1981). Behavioral and physiological reaction to observed violence:
Effects of prior exposure to aggressive stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 40, 868-875.

Geen, R. G., & Stonner, D. (1973). Context effects in observed violence. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 145-150.

Geen, R. G., & Stonner, D. (1974). The meaning of observed violence: Effects on
arousal and aggressive behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 8, 55-63.

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.

Hunter, J, E. & Gerbing, D. W. (1982) Unidimensional measurement, second
order factor analysis, and causal models. In B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds),

Research in Organizational Behavior: Volume I V. Greenwich, Conn., JAI Press, Inc.,
267-320.

Hoyt, J. L. (1970). Effect of media vio1ence "justification" on aggression. Journal
of Broadcasting, 14, 455-464.

Insko, C.A., Songer E., & McGarvey, W. (1974). Balance, positivity, and

agreement in the Jordan paradigm: A defense of balance theory. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 10, 53-83.

Jordan, N. (1953). Behavioral forces that are a function of attitudes and of
cognitive organization. Human Relations, 6, 273-287.

Kant, I. (1922). Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. In Immanuel Kant’s
Samtliche Werke (vol 5). Leipzig, Germany: lnselverlag. (Original work published in
1785).

Kohlberg, L. (1958). The development of moral thinking and choice in years ten
to sixteen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago.

Kohn, RM. (1972). The Authoritarianism-Rebellion scale: A balanced F scale
with left-wing reversals. Sociometry, 35. 176-189.

Lachlan, K.A., Tamborini, R., Westerrnan, D., & Skalski, P. (2003). Dispositional
and motivational cues associated with violent reprisal in professional wrestling: The
spiral of violence. Paper presented at the 89'h annual meeting of the National
Communication Association, Miami, FL.

106

Maguire, B. (2000). Defining deviancy down: A research note regarding
professional wrestling. Deviant Behavior, 21, 551-565.

McCrosky, J.C., & McCain, T.A. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal
attraction. Speech Monographs, 41, 261-266.

Meyer, T. P. (1972). Effect of viewing justified and unjustified real film violence
on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 21-29.

Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on anti-social
behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21, 516-546.

Perse, EM. (1986). Soap opera viewing patterns of college students and
cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 30, 159-174. i

 

Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J .T. (1981). Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and I
Contemporary Approaches. Dubuque, IA: W.C. Brown.

Raney, A. A. (2002). Moral Judgment as a Predictor of Enjoyment of Crime
Media Psychology, 4, 305-322.

Raney, A. A., & Bryant, J. (2002). Moral judgment and crime drama: An
integrated theory of enjoyment. Journal of Communication, 52, 402-415.

Rubin, A. (1981). An examination of television viewing motivations.
Communication Research, 8, 141-165.

Rubin, A.M., Perse, E.M., & Powell, RA. (1985). Lonliness, parasocial
interaction, and local television news viewing. Human Communication Research, 12,
155-18.

Sherif, M. (1962). lntergroup Relations and Leadership. New York: Wiley.

Sherif, C.W., & Sherif, M. (1965). Attitude and Attitude Change. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.

Sparks, G.G. (1995). Comments concerning the claim that mass media research is
“prescientific”: A response to potter, Cooper, and Dupagne. Communication Theory, 5,
273-280.

Tamborini, R., & Lachlan, K.A. (2003). Justifying Violence: The Impact of

Disposition and Motive on the Acceptability of Violent Reprisal. Paper presented at the
89lh annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Miami, FL

107

Wilson, B. J ., Kunkel, D., Linz, D., Potter, W. J ., Donnerstein, E., Smith, S. L.,
Blumenthal, E., & Gray, T. (1997). Violence in television programming overall:

University of California, Santa Barbara study, National Television Violence Study (Vol.
1, pp. 3-268). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Zillmann, D. (1996). Sequential dependencies in emotional experience and
behavior. In R.D. Kavanaugh, B. Zimmerman, & S. Fein (Eds.) Emotion:
Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Zillmann, D. (2000). Basal morality in drama appreciation. In I. Bondebjerg (Ed.),
Moving images, culture, and the mind. Luton: University of Luton.

Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1975). Viewer's moral sanction of retribution in the
appreciation of dramatic presentations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11.
572-582.

Zillman, D., & Cantor, J. (1977). Affective responses to the emotions of a
protagonist. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13,155-165.

108