伴随性愤怒指的是从一个情境中产生，能够迁移到另一个情境中并继续对人的决策产生作用的愤怒情绪。第三方惩罚指的是第三方个体在观察到不公正事件后，对肇事者实施惩罚。

在当下的网络社会，个体愈发容易地观察到不公正事件并引发愤怒，而肇事者若得不到足够的惩罚则愤怒会伴随到后续情境中；同时在网络环境中人们更愿意采取言语攻击作为一种廉价的第三方惩罚施加给肇事者。研究证明，伴随性愤怒会加重第三方的惩罚力度，但少有关于第三方惩罚如何反作用于伴随性愤怒的研究。本研究将要探讨的问题是，言语攻击作为第三方惩罚是如何影响伴随性愤怒和后续的第三方惩罚力度，以及进行言语攻击后观察他人对案件的评论是否会对愤怒和惩罚力度产生影响。

实验一，先启动58名被试的道德义愤，然后在一个无关的虚拟案件中随机让被试对肇事者进行/不进行言语攻击，最后进行第三方惩罚博弈游戏，并对其情绪水平进行前后测。结果发现，言语攻击并不会降低被试的愤怒水平，也不会减弱后续的第三方惩罚力度。

实验二，在实验一程序的基础上，让151名被试自主选择是否对案件中肇事者言语攻击，并让进行言语攻击的被试随机观察一种条件的他人评论（与自己一致、与自己不一致、无信息）。结果发现，选择言语攻击的被试相比于不攻击的被试，其愤怒水平有正向的变化；而3种他人评论条件下愤怒的变化量及第三方惩罚力度无显著差异。即进行言语攻击后，观察到他人对同一案件的评论（无论是否与自己一致）不会影响个体的愤怒水平和后续的第三方惩罚力度。

Incidental anger refers to the anger that arises from one situation, can migrate to another situation and continue to have an effect on people's decision-making. Third-party punishment refers to the punishment of the perpetrator after the third-party individual observes an unfair incident.

In the current online society, individuals are more likely to observe injustices and trigger anger. If the perpetrators are not sufficiently punished, the anger will be accompanied by subsequent situations; at the same time, people are more willing to take verbal attacks in the online environment. As a cheap third-party punishment imposed on the perpetrator. Studies have proved that incidental anger will increase the punishment of third parties, but there are few studies on how third-party punishment can counteract incidental anger. The question to be explored in this study is how verbal attack as a third-party punishment affects the accompanying anger and subsequent third-party punishment, and whether observing others' comments on the case after performing a verbal attack will affect the anger and punishment.

Study 1, first start the moral outrage of 58 subjects, then randomly let the subjects conduct/not verbal attacks on the perpetrator in an unrelated virtual case, and finally play a third-party punishment game game, and conduct before and after the emotional level. Measurement. It was found that verbal attacks did not reduce the subjects’ anger level, nor did it weaken the follow-up third-party punishment.

Study 2, on the basis of study one procedure, let 151 subjects choose whether to verbally attack the perpetrator in the case, and let the subjects who made the verbal attack randomly observe a condition of others’ comments (consistent with oneself, with oneself) Inconsistent, no information). The results showed that the subjects who chose verbal attack had a positive change in their anger level compared with those who did not attack; but there was no significant difference in the amount of change in anger and the intensity of third-party punishment under the three conditions of other people's comments. That is, after performing a verbal attack, observing other people's comments on the same case (whether consistent with oneself or not) will not affect the individual's anger level and subsequent third-party punishment.