Initiating and reciprocating verbal aggression: Effects on credibility and credited valid arguments

Abstract

Felson's Impression Management Theory of violence was used to conceptualize a source credibility approach to studying verbal aggression. Research participants listened to a recorded discussion of two speakers arguing a controversial topic. One speaker initiated either a high or low level of verbal aggression and the other speaker either reciprocated or did not reciprocate the verbal aggression. Participants in the control group listened to a discussion containing no verbal aggression. The initiators of verbal aggression were seen as less credible, and had fewer valid arguments credited to them by observers. In comparison, the target of verbal aggression was seen as more credible, and was credited with more valid arguments, when s/he reciprocated a level of verbal aggression. An unexpected finding was that participants overestimated the amount of verbal aggression in the discussion.