{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01831964624131396, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.827586206896552, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Judgements of different types of aggressive behaviour.

Subjects read a description of a person performing an aggressive act. Then followed a series of statements relating to the motives of the respondent and the circumstances in which he acted. One set of instructions indicated that the aggression was directed towards achieving the respondent's own goals (personal aggression) and another instruction indicated that the aggression was exhibited to help another individual (social aggression). The personal aggression behaviours were further classified according to whether they were intended to hurt the victim (hostile) or were performed for financial reasons (instrumental), and according to whether the aggressive sequence was started by the victim (reactive) or by the respondent himself (initiatory). Subjects evaluated each of these behaviours along several dimensions. Social aggression was evaluated more favourably than all forms of personal aggression except reactive instrumental. Initiatory aggression was evaluated more unfavourably than reactive aggression and, of the types of personal aggression, initiatory instrumental and reactive instrumental received, respectively, the most unfavourable and most favourable evaluations. Subjects' ratings of the degree to which they would behave in a similar manner to the respondent showed little generality across different motives and circumstances. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for the processes that mediate judgements of aggression and for theory and assessment in the area of aggression.