Perpetrators' folk explanations of their regretted and justified aggressive behaviors.

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Journal of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2024-09-02 Epub Date: 2023-03-07 DOI:10.1080/00224545.2023.2186830
Randy J McCarthy, Jared P Wilson
{"title":"Perpetrators' folk explanations of their regretted and justified aggressive behaviors.","authors":"Randy J McCarthy, Jared P Wilson","doi":"10.1080/00224545.2023.2186830","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When people explain why they behaved aggressively, they can refer to their thought process that led to their aggressive behavior - so-called <i>reason</i> explanations - or to other factors that preceded their thought process - so-called <i>causal history of reasons explanations</i>. People's choice of what mode of explanation they give might be affected by whether they want to distance themselves (or not) from their past aggressive behaviors. To test these ideas, participants in the current study (<i>N</i> = 429) either recalled an aggressive behavior they regret or an aggressive behavior they believe was justified. Participants then explained why they behaved aggressively. Mostly, people gave reason explanations for their aggressive behaviors, which is consistent with past research on how people explain intentional behaviors. Further, and as predicted, participants who explained behaviors they believe were justified gave (relatively) more reason explanations and participants who explained behaviors they regretted gave (relatively) more causal history of reasons explanations. These findings are consistent with the idea that participants adjust their explanations to either provide a rationale for, or to distance themselves from, their past aggressive behaviors.</p>","PeriodicalId":48205,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2023.2186830","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When people explain why they behaved aggressively, they can refer to their thought process that led to their aggressive behavior - so-called reason explanations - or to other factors that preceded their thought process - so-called causal history of reasons explanations. People's choice of what mode of explanation they give might be affected by whether they want to distance themselves (or not) from their past aggressive behaviors. To test these ideas, participants in the current study (N = 429) either recalled an aggressive behavior they regret or an aggressive behavior they believe was justified. Participants then explained why they behaved aggressively. Mostly, people gave reason explanations for their aggressive behaviors, which is consistent with past research on how people explain intentional behaviors. Further, and as predicted, participants who explained behaviors they believe were justified gave (relatively) more reason explanations and participants who explained behaviors they regretted gave (relatively) more causal history of reasons explanations. These findings are consistent with the idea that participants adjust their explanations to either provide a rationale for, or to distance themselves from, their past aggressive behaviors.

施暴者对其后悔的和合理的攻击行为的民间解释。
当人们解释自己为什么会做出攻击性行为时,他们可以提及导致其攻击性行为的思维过程--即所谓的原因解释,也可以提及在其思维过程之前的其他因素--即所谓的原因因果史解释。人们在选择何种解释方式时,可能会受到他们是否想(或不想)与过去的攻击行为保持距离的影响。为了验证这些观点,本次研究的参与者(N = 429)要么回忆了自己后悔的攻击行为,要么回忆了自己认为合理的攻击行为。然后,参与者解释了他们做出攻击性行为的原因。大多数人都对自己的攻击行为做出了合理的解释,这与过去关于人们如何解释故意行为的研究结果一致。此外,正如所预测的那样,解释自己认为合理的行为的参与者给出了(相对)更多的原因解释,而解释自己后悔的行为的参与者给出了(相对)更多的因果历史原因解释。这些发现与以下观点是一致的,即参与者会调整他们的解释,以便为他们过去的攻击性行为提供理由或与之保持距离。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Social Psychology
Journal of Social Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: Since John Dewey and Carl Murchison founded it in 1929, The Journal of Social Psychology has published original empirical research in all areas of basic and applied social psychology. Most articles report laboratory or field research in core areas of social and organizational psychology including the self, attribution theory, attitudes, social influence, consumer behavior, decision making, groups and teams, sterotypes and discrimination, interpersonal attraction, prosocial behavior, aggression, organizational behavior, leadership, and cross-cultural studies. Academic experts review all articles to ensure that they meet high standards.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信