When do normative beliefs about aggression predict aggressive behavior? An application of I3 theory.

ABSTRACT

I(3) theory assumes that aggressive behavior is dependent on three orthogonal processes (i.e., Instigator, Impellance, and Inhibition). Previous studies showed that Impellance (trait aggressiveness, retaliation tendencies) better predicted aggression when Instigator was strong and Inhibition was weak. In the current study, we predicted that another Impellance (i.e., normative beliefs about aggression) might predict aggression when Instigator was absent and Inhibition was high (i.e., the perfect calm proposition). In two experiments, participants first completed the normative beliefs about aggression questionnaire. Two weeks later, participants' self-control resources were manipulated either using the Stroop task (study 1, N = 148) or through an "e-crossing" task (study 2, N = 180). Afterwards, with or without being provoked, participants played a game with an ostensible partner where they had a chance to aggress against them. Study 1 found that normative beliefs about aggression negatively and significantly predicted aggressive behavior only when provocation was absent and self-control resources were not depleted. In Study 2, normative beliefs about aggression negatively predicted aggressive behavior at marginal significance level only in the "no-provocation and no-depletion" condition. In conclusion, the current study provides partial support for the perfect calm proposition and I(3) theory.