The Journalo/ SocialPsychology,1975,97, 195-208.

THE CATHARTIC VALUE OF SELF-EXPRESSION:

TESTING, CATHARSIS, DISSONANCE, ANDINTERFERENCE EXPLANATIONS* 1

University o] California, San Diego

ROBERT M. KAPLAN

SUMMARY

The effects of anger arousal, type of expression, and communicationdestiny on anger and aggressive drive are examined. One hundred tenstudents were exposed to an insulting or a noninsulting communication.Subjects replied to the communication by supporting it, opposing it, ortaking a neutral position. Some were told that their replies would be readby the person who had written the communication (target), and othersthat their responses would not be shown to the target. Results show thatanger arousal produced more hostility than the nonarousal and that angerarousal interacted with type of expression. Angry subjects who had ex-pressed their feelings became more hostile than subjects who had expressedthe opposite of their feelings. Angry subjects who had taken a neutralposition, however, were lowest in hostility. Experimental effects attributableto other variables were nonsignificant. The results are interpreted in termsof a cognitive interference hypothesis.

A. INTRODUCTION

A notion widely accepted by psychologists, psychiatrists, and lay peopleis that the expression of aggression, hostility, or rage reduces the consequentprobability of the occurrence of aggressive behavior (5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19,28, 29). Such changes in aggressive behavior or affect are usually labeled"catharsis" or a "cathartic effect."

Many psychologists do not accept the existence of catharsis and, in fact,

* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on May 22, 1974.Copyright, 1975, by The Journal Press.

a Some of the data presented herein also appeared in a doctoral dissertation presentedto the University of California, Riverside by the author. The helpful comments of RobertD. Singer, Roy D. Goldman, and Arthur Bohart on an earlier draft of this paper aregratefully acknowledged.

2 Requests for reprints should be addressed to the author at the address shown at theend of this article.

1_6 _OURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

feel that the expression of aggression, anger, or hostility leads to increases

rather than decreases in aggression (2, 21, 26). One theoretical explanationof such views fits within the framework of the theory of cognitive dissonance(13). Expressing hostility toward someone would be dissonant with any cog-

nitions that the target may be a good or reasonable person or with the aggres-sor's view of himself as a peaceful or friendly individual. In order to reduce

the dissonance resulting from an attack and to justify the attack on him

it may be necessary to denigrate the target of aggression. Evidence tends to

show that disliked persons or groups are highly likely targets for aggressivebehavior. Once denigrated, a person or group is more likely to be attacked

than before. Aronson (2, p. 157) sums up the dissonance view suggestingthat, "Violence does not reduce the tendency toward violence: violence

breeds more violence."

Another possible interpretation of the catharsis and aggression literature

is that conditions that force subjects to focus on anger enhance the main-

tenance of high anger levels. According to this viewpoint, symbolic expression

may only serve to alert the subject about his own hostility level. The expres-

sion of anger by angry persons may result in maintenance of aggressive drive.

However, conditions which produce cognitive interference with an annoying

event would permit anger to dissipate.

Experimental studies have often served to confuse rather than clarify thisdifference in theoretical outlook because researchers have allowed considerable

variability in methods of anger arousal, modes of aggressive expression, andchoice of dependent measures.

For the purposes of this discussion, aggression refers to behavior which is

designed to result in harm to some person or his property (14); anger con-notes an emotional state with autonomic correlates which can serve to ener-

gize aggressive behavior. The terms hostility and aggressive drive are used

interchangeably and refer to a negative attitude or feeling of ill will about

people or events (6). In addition to these commonly used labels, the term

hostile behavior is used to connote a composite of hostility and aggression;it refers to the behavioral component of hostile attitudes.

An experiment which considers anger (an emotional state), aggressive

drive (an attitudinal state), and hostile behavior (a form of aggression) has

been undertaken to clarify the role of self-expression in the reduction of anger

and aggressive drive. Some of the variables manipulated in the experiment

include (a) anger arousal; (b) type of expression; and (c) communicationdestination.

ROBERT M. KAPLAN 197

1. Anger Arousal

The anger arousal phase in catharsis experimentation is of major theoreti-cal and methodological import. Several literature reviewers (e.g., 6) havesuggested that the presence or absence of anger arousal may account for someof the discrepant results in catharsis research. Buss (6) contends that ex-pressing aggression will produce a cathartic effect for angry subjects. Ifsubjects are not angry, expression of aggression may teach them to behaveaggressively on subsequent occasions, thus producing an increment due tolearning.

2. Type o/ Expression

Different theories would make different recommendations about how hos-

tility could be reduced in angry subjects. Catharsis theories predict thathonest, direct expressions would be most effective. Dissonance theory holdsthat counterattitudinal role play would reduce the most anger. The inter-ference viewpoint maintains that any type of expression which interfereswith anger related cognitions will reduce hostility.

3. Message Destination

Berkowitz (4, 5) among others (3, 10, 18) maintains that the occurrenceof a cathartic effect depends upon the degree to which the subject believeshis hostile behaviors will affect the person toward whom they are directed.Thus, the destination of a message may be a crucial variable in catharsisresearch.

Data on communication destination may be relevant to Collins' revisionof dissonance theory. Collins (7) and Hoyt, Henley, and Collins (20) haveproposed that an individual will only experience dissonance when aversiveconsequences to himself or others result from his attitudinal or counteratti-tudinal expression. Thus they predict that the dissonance effect will occurwhen a self-expression is presumed to reach its destination and to have anoxious effect.

4. Summary o/ Theoretical Predictions

In the present experiment 55 subjects read an insulting communicationand 55 subjects saw a noninsulting communication. All subjects replied tothe communication, either supporting it, opposing it, or taking a neutralposition. Some subjects were lead to believe their replies would be shown tothe person who had written the communication (target), while other sub-jects were told their replies would not reach their target.

198 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Several theories predict different outcomes for the experiment. For angrysubjects, the catharsis and the learning viewpoints predict that direct attitu-dinal expression will be the most effective treatment for reducing aggressivedrive. The dissonance position predicts that counterattitudinal expressionwill be the most effective means of reducing hostility and that direct expres-sion will be the least effective treatment. The learning and dissonance posi-tions both predict an increment in hostility for nonangry counterexpressionsubjects. The catharsis viewpoint does not make this prediction.

The interference position predicts that neutral activity will lead to morehostility reduction than counterattitudinal expression, since the latter wouldalso draw some attention to the anger arousing incident. For nonangry sub-jects, counterattitudinal expression should serve to increase self-perceptionsof hostility. Direct attitudinal expression and neutral activities could beexpected to have little effect.

B. METHOD

1. Subjects

The subjects were 50 male and 60 female introductory psychology studentswho were enroIIed at San Bernardino Valley College, a California communitycollege with students from a variety of ethnic and social class backgrounds.

2. Independent Variables

The experiment was purported to be on communication. The experimenter,who was introduced as an assistant to a researcher interested in the scientific

study of journalism, explained that the exercise involved reading and respond-ing to letters to the editor. The experiment included several phases:

a. Anger Arousal. Anger was aroused in half of the subjects, and notaroused in the remaining half. This was achieved by allowing subjects toread a letter to the editor which they were told had recently been printed ina large newspaper. The letter concerned a proposition on the Californiaballot which would provide for funding of California Community Colleges,an issue known to be of interest to the students. For the Anger Arousalcondition, the letter urged a vote against the proposition. In the argument,the letter writer made several degrading remarks about community collegestudents. He claimed they were stupid, irresponsible, and not worthy of freeeducation. The letter for Non-Anger Arousal condition favored the proposi-tion, adapting arguments from the campaign literature to emphasize the needfor additional support for community colleges and to focus on the need forexpanded funding of these institutions.

ROBERT M. KAPLAN 199

b. Expression Type Manipulation. All subjects in the Direct and Coun-terexpression groups were asked to reply to the letter they had read in themanner specified by the instructions. There were three versions of instruc-tions for the reply: Forty-four subjects were instructed to reply to the lettersupporting the Position taken by the letter writer. Angry subjects receivingthis instruction were classified as the Counterexpression group. Nonangry

subjects assigned to this task were classified as the Direct-expression group.

Another 44 subjects received a similar instruction asking them to oppose theposition taken by the letter writer and to attack the man and his ideas in

the reply. These subjects represented the Angry Direct-expression group and

the Not Angry Counterexpression group. In addition, there was an Angryand a Not Angry Neutral Expression group. The instruction to these 22

subjects asked them to write an essay about the value of letters to the editor

without mentioning either the letter they had read or its author.

c. Communication Destiny Manipulation. A note on the page followingthe space for the reply was used to manipulate communication destiny. In

the Direct and Counterexpression conditions, the note thanked subjects forwriting the reply. The remainder of the note was in one of two forms. In the

To-target Condition, it was explained that the reply which had been written

would be shown to the letter writer when he visited the college. In the Not-to-target Condition it was emphasized that the reply would only be used for

the purposes of the research and would not be shown to the letter writer when

he made his campus visit. The note was not used for neutral expression groups,since it would have had no meaning for them.

3. Dependent Measures

a. Manipulation Check. Just after the anger arousal phase of the exper-

iment, several scales were administered so that the effect of the manipulation

could be evaluated. These items were on a single page of the experimentalbooklet which immediately followed the letter to the editor. The first two

entries on this page were dummy items used to make the study appear au-

thentic. The first asked if any of the letters concerning Proposition 1 had

been read in the newspaper. The second item asked if the actual letter used

for the study had been read previously. The next item was included to deter-

mine the subject's orientation with respect to the letter. It asked whether

the subject agreed with the comments made by the letter writer. Another

item probed voting intention for Proposition 1.Following the questions was a series of four semantic differential scales.

The poles of the scales, separated by a seven choice response space, were as

200 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

follows: .active-passive, relaxed-tense, angry-pleased, and good-bad. Thesemantic differential scales were used to tap affective changes which mayhave resulted from exposure to the letter.

b. Attraction. As a measure of interpersonal attraction, subjects wereasked to rate the target on a number of traits. The traits were chosen fromAnderson's (1) list of traits which are attributed to highly likable and highlydislikable persons. A cover story explained that the letter writer had beenapproached and interviewed, and that he had responded to items from wellknown personality tests. The subject's task was to see how accurately hecould fill in information on the basis of minimal exposure to the letter writer.These appraisals were to be compared to the personality test results. Thejudgments of each trait were made along 13 point scales where 0 indicatedthe trait described the writer well, 12 indicated the trait did not describehim well, and 6 was a neutral point. A similar story used in a recent stud5(27) appeared to be taken at face value.

c. Affective Measure. The Abasement (aba) and Aggression (agg) scalesof the Gough Adjective Checklist (16) followed the attraction measures andwere used to evaluate the affective or anger state. Instructions asked thesubject to mark each adjective which described how he was feeling at thatmoment.

d. Behavioral Task. On the final page of the booklet, a note explainedthat all of the people who had written letters to the editor had been invitedto participate in a panel discussion at the college during the week before theelection. The guests were to be paid from a guest lecturer fund, but the exactamount had not been decided upon. The note then explained that since thesubject was one of the few people at the college who had been exposed tothe letter writer's opinions, it would be appropriate for him to suggest howmuch money the letter writer should receive for his visit. Thirty dollars wasgiven as the usual fee, and the subject was led to believe that his suggestionwould actually affect how much the person would receive. The subject wasthen asked to select one of 11 values which ranged from $5 to $55 at fivedollar intervals. The amount selected was taken as an index of hostile be-havior.

e. Cognitive Measure. Greenberg and Tannenbaum (17) demonstratedthat angry subjects made more spelling and grammatical errors while encod-ing than nonangry subjects. They suggested the number of errors may be avalid index of cognitive stress. Each subject's reply was read, and errors weretallied by two female graduate students who had backgrounds in language.

ROBERTM. KAPLAN 201

C. RESULTS

1. Data Trans]ormations

Data for some of the dependent measures had to be transformed or re-organized. Ratings of traits used as attraction measures were factor analyzed(using varimax rotation of the principal components matrix). The factoranalysis revealed that two factors accounted for a substantial proportion ofthe variance. These factors each represented clear conceptual dimensions andwere dubbed Trustworthy and Annoyance. Subscales were calculated bysumming together ratings for the four traits which loaded above a .50 criterionon each factor. Trustworthy scores were calculated by summing together rat-

ings for the traits: competent, dependable, helpful, and sensible. Annoyancescores were obtained by summing together ratings on the traits: obnoxious,narrow-minded, irritating, and overcritical.

Spelling and grammatical errors were analyzed in terms of errors perhundred words.

2. Manipulation Checks

In preparing the ficticious letters to the editor, two assumptions weremade. These were as follows: (a) subjects would disagree with the angeringletter and agree with the nonangering letter; and (b) the angering letterwould make subjects more angry than the nonangering letter.

To check on the former assumption, comparisons between subjects who hadreceived the different letters were made for the question, "Do you agree withthe comments made by the letter writer?" Four of the 55 subjects exposed tothe angering letter claimed to agree with the author's views and only threeof the 55 subjects who had read the nonangering letter indicated disagreement(X2 -- 73.39, d] : 2, p < .001).

To determine whether the angering letter produced feelings of anger, re-sponses to the "angry-pleased" semantic differential scale were analyzed. Theseven point scale was scored so that low scores would indicate response towardthe "angry" pole and high scores would reflect responses toward the "pleased"

pole. The mean for subjects exposed to the angering communication (x -- 2.87)was considerably closer to the angry pole than the mean for subjects who

were exposed to the nonangering communication (x--5.61). Statisticalanalysis showed this difference to be significant beyond the .0001 level[t (108)---10.66]. Subjects exposed to the angering communication alsoreported feeling more tense It (108) -- 2.20; p < .03], active [t (108) --

202 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

--3.71; p < .001], and bad [t (108) = 3,54; p < .01] than those exposedto the nonangering communication.

3. Pretreatment Comparisons

Although the angering manipulation occurred early in the experiment, theother independent variables were introduced after the set of manipulationchecks. Analysis of the four questionnaire items and the four semantic dif-ferentials showed no differences between subjects who were assigned to thevarious communication destiny or expression type conditions. Similarly, therewere no differences by sex, and all interactions were nonsignificant. There-fore, it seems safe to postulate that there were no differences between subjectswithin each anger arousal group before the other manipulations were intro-duced.

4. Preliminary Analysis

The standard deviations and intercorrelafions of all dependent variablesare presented in Table 1.

The data were first analyzed without neutral groups included but withthe addition of sex of subjects as a variable. This permitted a 2 X 2 X 2 X 2(Anger X Communication Destination X Type of Expression X Sex) multi-variate analysis of variance (MANOVA). The results of this analysis revealeda highly significant effect for the Anger manipulation [F (11,62)= 20.41;p _ .0001 ] and a significant interaction between Anger and Expression Type[F (11,62)--2.02; p _ .05]. All main effects and interactions associatedwith Communication Destiny manipulation and the Sex of subjects werenonsignificant.

In order to provide a clearer picture of the significant effects, data werecollapsed across the two variables which failed to provide statistically reliableresults. Since the Neutral Expression groups contained half as many subjectsas the other experimental groups (experimental groups having been combinedover Communication Destiny were double in size), the cell sizes were unequaland the design was nonorthogonal. In order to obtain unbiased F contrasts,the contrast sequence reordering technique (15) was employed. Each con-trast of interest was obtained by subtraction from the between groups sum

of squares and cross-products matrix (SSCP) after all other contrasts hadbeen subtracted. As a result of this process, each multivariate F ratio isconservative and unbiased.

In the results of the 2 X 3 (Anger X Expression Type) analysis the datashowed a significant effect for Anger Arousal [F (7/98) = 16.12; p < .0001]

TABLE 1

STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND INTERCORRELATIONS OF DEPENDENT VARIABLES O_

Variables Standard deviations 1 2 3 # 5 6 7

1. Annoyance 7.80 1.00 --.54 .33 --.22 .24 --.15 .032. Trustworthy 4.52 1.00 --.48 .36 --.23 .14 --.073. Behavioral task 2.68 1.00 --.40 .29 --.27 --.05 "4. Gough aggression 11.95 1.00 --.35 .29 --.015. Gough abasement 15.74 1.00 --.03 --.026. Spelling errors 2.43 1.00 .497. Grammar errors 3.55

t',o

204 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

and significant interaction between Anger and Expression Type [F (14/196)-- 1.91; p < .03].

5. Discriminant Function Analysis

Multivariate interactions are difficult to interpret. It seems that type of

expression affected hostility level differently for angry than for nonangrysubjects, but the loci of the interaction were not clear. To gain insight intothe meanings of the multivariate interaction, a discriminant function analysis(8, 23) of groups arrayed in a 1 X 6 design was employed. The results of thisanalysis are shown in Table 2. There was a highly significant difference

between group centroids [Rao's approximation of F (35,415)--3.49; p <.0001 ]. Only the first root of W-1A (where W -1 = the inverse of the within

groups SSCP matrix and A--the between groups SSCP matrix) was staffs-tically significant by conventional standards [X_ (35) = 11.32; p < .0001].

The meaning of the discriminant function can best be understood by

examining the loading of dependent variables upon the function. Theseloadings also appear in Table 2. Examination of Table 2 reveals that dif-ferences between groups can be largely accounted for by differences on thetwo attraction measures and the behavioral measure. This factor can be

regarded as general hostility or aggressive drive.

6. Group Centroids

Centroids were computed by multiplying scores on each dependent vari-able by the corresponding raw discriminant function coefficient and summingthe products across variables. The centroids for the groups of interest aredisplayed in Table 3. High scores indicate low hostility, and low scores indi-cate high hostility. As expected, angry subjects scored higher on hostilitythan nonangry subjects. The interaction between expression Type and Angercan be seen in Table 3. In relation to Direct Expression subjects, Counter-expression subjects were lower on hostility when angry, but higher on hostilitywhen not angry. Multivariate simple effects tests revealed the differencesamong Expression Types to be highly significant among the angry subjects[F (14,196) = 3.27; p < .0002] but nonsignificant among nonangry subjects

[F(14,196) = 1.43; p < .10]. Further analysis showed both the AngryDirect IF (7.98) --3.94; p < .001] and the Angry Counter [F (7.98) --

2.78; p < .01 ] groups to differ from the angry Neutral group the Neutral

group showing the least hostility.

ROBERT M. KAPLAN 20S

TABLE 2MULTIVARIATE COMPARISON OF GROUPS ARRAYED IN A ONE-BY-SIX DESIGN

Variables Univariate F p_ SDFC a

Annoyance 17.82 .0001 .71Trustworthy 12.23 .0001 --.35Behavioral task 8.13 .0001 .42Gough aggression 3.45 .01 --.03Gough abasement 2.04 .07 --.05Spelling errors .84 NS .07Grammarerrors .92 NS .01

Note: Multivariate F (35,415) -- 3.49; p < .0001.a SDFC -- Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficient.

D. DISCUSSION

The results of the experiment were consistent with the interference hy-pothesis. Among angry subjects, those who engaged in a neutral expressionbecame less hostile than those who participated in either the Direct orCounterexpression groups. These data suggest that activities which remindedangry persons of a provocateur were less effective in reducing hostility thanactivities which diverted attention away from the instigator. Experimentsperformed under other circumstances with different subject populations havesimilarly shown that distraction may lead to significant reduction in aggres-sive drive. Mallick and McCandles (26), for example, observed that workingproblems in mathematics was more effective in reducing children's aggressionthan playing aggressively. The interference viewpoint may provide a viableexplanation for the confusing results of studies on aggression mediated bytelevised violence. These experiments frequently show that T.V. violence hasan aggression-activating effect when subjects are angered, but no effect whensubjects are not angered (24). It is suggested that violent acts on televisionremind subjects of their own anger and keep their arousal from dissipating.Nonviolent shows may serve to distract the angry subjects and, therefore,may produce lower levels of arousal. Clearly, the interference notion providesa more parsimonious explanation of data from a variety of studies than doeseither the catharsis or dissonance viewpoint. Zillman and Johnson (30) haverecently come to a similar conclusion on the basis of some experimental evi-dence. Thus, distraction rather than confrontation may be a worthwhilemeans of avoiding outbreaks of hostility.

Neither catharsis nor the dissonance theory would have predicted theresults of the present study. Catharsis theory would have predicted that,among angry subjects, direct expression would have produced the greatest

206 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 3GROL-P CENTROIDS ON LARGESTDESCRIIVIINANTFUNCTION

(Lower scores indicate greater hostility)

Arousal

Expressionform Angry Not angry

Direct .21a 3.10 eCounter .58a 2.39 eNeutral 1.59b 2.77 e

Note: Centroids with common subscript do not differ at the .01 level.

anger reduction. Our data show just the opposite. Dissonance theory could•explain the outcome for the angry Direct expression subjects, but would havedifficulty explaining why subjects taking a neutral position became lesshostile than those taking a counterattitudinal stand. Only the interferenceposition can account for all of the experimental data.

Contrary to some theoretical positions (3, 5, 10, 20) subjects who believedtheir essays were going to be shown to the target did not differ from thosewho believed that the essay would not reach the target (as reflected by scoreson several measures). It should be noted, however, that the CommunicationDestiny manipulation was relatively weak and that a more noticeable manip-ulation may have been successful. The equivalence of the Angry and NotAngry groups for the number of spelling and grammatical errors fails toreplicate the finding reported by Greenberg and Tannenbaum (17). Subjectsin the present experiment, however, wrote fewer words than those in theGreenberg and Tannenbaum experiment, and the possibility still remainsthat the effect would have occurred had our subjects written more words.

Two limitations of the experiment should be mentioned. First, the angerarousal manipulation was quite weak. Therefore, the results may be specificto mild levels of anger. Second, the results may also be quite specific to thedependent measures which were employed. Both the author (22) and Kofiecni(25) have pointed out that in catharsis and aggression research, differentdependent measures will often show different effects in response to the samemanipulation. If different measures had been used, the results might havebeen different.

REFERENCES

1. ANDERSON,N. H. Likableness ratings of 555 personality trait words. J. Personal. &Soc. Psychol., 1968, 9, 272-279.

2. ARONSON,E. The Social Animal. New York: Freedman, 1972.

3. BARON, R. A. Magnitude of victim's pain cues and level of prior anger arousal as

ROBERTM. KAPLAN 207

determinants of adult aggressive behavior. J. Personal. &Soc. Psychol., 1971, 17,236-243.

4. BERr:OWIrZ,L. Aggression:A Social-PsychologicalAnalysis.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.

5. . Aggressive cues in aggressive behavior and hostility catharsis. Psychot.Rev., 1964, 71, 104-122.

6. Buss, A. H. ThePsychology of Aggression. New York: Wiley, 1961.7. COLLr_S, B. E. Attribution theory analysis or forced compliance. Proc. 77th Ann.

Conven. Amer. Psychol. Assoc., 1969, 4, 309-310.

8. COOLEY, W. W., & LOHNES, P. R. Multivariate Data Analysis. New York: Wiley,1971.

9. DOr.r_ARD,J., DOOR, L. W., Mrr.r.Eg, N. E., MOWRER, O. H., & SEARS, R. R. Frustrationand Aggression. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1939.

10. Doos, A. N. Catharsis and aggression: The effects of hurting one's enemy. J. Exper.Res. Personal., 1970, 4, 291-296.

il. FESHBACH, S. The drive-reducing function of fantasy behavior. J. Abn. & Soc.Psychol., 1955, 50, 3-11.

12. . The function of aggression and the regulation of aggressive drive. Psychol.Rev., 1964, 71, 257-272.

13. FESTIVal.R, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, Ill.: Row Peterson,1957.

14. FRESD_AN, J. L., CARr.S_ITH, S. M., & SEARS, D. C. Social Psychology. EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1970.

15. GOLD_AN, R. D. Effects of a logical versus a mnemonic learning strategy on per-formance in two undergraduate psychology classes. J. Educ. Psychol., 1972, 63,347-352.

16. GOU6H, H. G., & H_._BRU_r, A. B. The Adjective Checklist Manual. Palo Alto,Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1965.

17. GRESrCBERG,B. S., & TArCNErCBAU_,P. H. Communicator performance under cognitivestress. Journalism Quart., 1962, 39, 1969-178.

18. HART_ANN, D. P. The influence of symbolically modeled instrumental aggressionand pain cues on aggressive behavior. J. Personal. & Soc. Psychol., 1969, 11,280-288.

19. HOrZANSON,J. E., & BURCESS, M. The effects of three types of aggression on vascularprocesses. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1962, 64, 446-449.

20. HoYT, M. F., HEr_LEY, M. D., & COLLI_S, B. E. Studies in forced compliance: Theconfluence of choice and consequence of attitude changes. Unpublished manuscript,University of California, Los Angeles, 1971 (mimeograph).

21. KAHN, M. The psychology of catharsis. J. Personal. & Soc. Psychol., 1966, 3, 278-286.

22. KAPr_A_r,R. M. The cathartic value of attitudinal and counterattitudinal expression.Proc. 81st Ann. Conven. Amer. Psychol. Assoc., 1973, 277-278.

23. KAPLAN, R. M., & GOLDMAN, R. N. Interracial perception among Black, White, andMexican-American high school students. J. Personal. & Soc. Psychol., 1973, 28,383-389.

24. KAPr.A_, R. M., & SI_rGER, R. D. Psychological effects of televised fantasy: A re-view and methodological critique: J. Soc. lss., 1976, in press.

25. KONE_NI, V. J. Experimental studies of human aggression: The cathartic effect.Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 1973.

26. MALLICK, S. K., & MCCANDLES, B. R. A study of catharsis and aggression. J. Per-sonal. & Soc. Psychol., 1966, 4, 591-596.

27. Rm_rE, R. J., & KApr.AN, R. M. The effect of message incredulity upon the evalu-ation of the source of communication. J. Soc. Psychol., 1972, 88, 255-266.

208 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

28. ROSENBA_M, M. E., & DECHARMES, R. Direct and vicarious reductions of hostility.I. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1960, 60, 105-1t!.

29. T_rmAUT, J. W., & Co_Es, J. The role of communication in the reduction of inter-personal hostility. J. Abn. & Soc. Psychol., 1952, 47, 770-777.

30. Z_LMAN, D., & Jo_r_SON, R. C. Motivated aggressiveness perpetuated by exposureto aggressive films and reduced by exposure to nonaggressive films. J. gxper. Res.Personal., 1973, 7, 261-276.

Psychological Clinic

San Diego State UniversitySan Diego, California 92182