Blame the Player, Not the Game? How Perceived Institutional Inequality Predicts Displaced Aggression

Why do individuals, when facing institutional injustice, direct their anger toward peers rather than powerful actors? The existing literature typically explains displaced aggression through emotional arousal or power asymmetries. However, we argue that interpretive meaning within specific institutional contexts plays a more decisive role in shaping aggressive behavior. Drawing on a triadic framework of structural stimulus, narrative interpretation, and behavioral response, we conducted a scenario-based survey of 1109 Chinese university students across five institutions. The results show that perceived institutional inequality significantly increases displaced aggression (β = 0.388, <i>p</i> < 0.001), but not upward aggression (β = 0.091, <i>p</i> = 0.061). Two mediating mechanisms, perceived cost of aggression and inequality justification, account for 15.3% and 12.4% of the total effect, respectively. Moreover, pro-authoritarian attitude significantly amplifies the effect of perceived inequality on displaced aggression (interaction β = 0.224, <i>p</i> < 0.001). In addition, we find a counterfactual result that females show 0.248 units more displaced aggression than males under perceived inequality. These findings highlight how individuals internalize inequality as meaningful and actionable, even in constrained political settings. This study contributes a narrative-based theoretical framework for understanding misdirected aggression under institutional inequality.