Effects of punishment magnitude in the bilateral threat situation: Evidence for the deterrence hypothesis.

Abstract

Tested the hypothesis, derived from deterrence theory, that the capacity of a high-power person to deter a lower-power person from aggressing against him is a direct function of the high-power person's punishment magnitude. 56 male undergraduate pairs bargained in a bilateral threat situation where each could threaten and attack his opponent. Independent variables consisted of the punishment magnitude (i.e., the amount of destructive capability) wielded by the high-power Ss and the punishment magnitude wielded by the lower-power Ss. Results support the deterrence prediction. Although the frequency with which Ss issued threats did not vary as a function of punishment magnitude, the lower-power S's tendency to carry out his threats diminished as the high-power S's punishment magnitude increased. The data also show that punishment magnitude affected the high-power S's capacity to gain compliance from the lower-power S. Various indicators of compliance (including the high-power S's point outcomes and the lower-power S's disposition to accept the high-power S's demands) increased with the high-power S's magnitude and decreased with the lower-power S's magnitude. Findings are contrasted with previous studies of threat and deterrence. (20 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)