ABSTRACT
In studies designed to arouse aggression, the instigator often not only threatens the subject, but also expresses an extremely high self-evaluation. Subjects are insulted about their intelligence, sexual attractiveness, and character, and, at the same time, the instigator implies or explicitly describes his own superiority in these respects. Such a circumstance suggests that whatever aggressive actions and attitudes the subject displays might reflect a cognitive-validation process in addition to, or perhaps instead of, a reaction to the threat of a loss in status or security. Thus, if there is evidence of a discrepancy between the self-esteem expressed by the instigator and his estimated true worth, an individual can be expected to reject the estimate implied by the boastfulness. In most aggression studies, various criteria representing 78the objective worth of the instigator along certain dimensions are typically available to the subject. There is, for example, the absolute level of the instigator’s self-evaluation itself. An extremely positive self-estimate in a given area probably belies the instigator’s true worth in that area. The subject reacts: “No one is that good.” The expressed confidence of the instigator also supplies clues as to the validity of his self-evaluation. If the instigator exudes supreme confidence in his elevated self-evaluation, it is likely that the subject will think he is overestimating his worth. Additionally, with respect to certain dimensions at least, there are quasi-objective clues as to his approximately correct valuation. In some situations, his use of language, the quickness of his response, and so on are usable as validating criteria. Finally, there are social clues from which a valid estimate of worth can be inferred. Important among these is the instigator’s professional status. In some studies, instigators have been professors of psychology; in others, graduate students. Typically, these indicators are regarded as more valid than the instigator’s self-evaluation.
