26 November 2008
Measurement of Aggression
in
Laboratory Settings
Aimée E. M. Capello
Utrecht University
Abstract
This article represents an evaluation of the construct validity of contemporary laboratory aggression
research. The notion of severe limitations in major aggression paradigms was raised by Tedeschi and
Quigley (1996) and largely disputed by Giancola and Chermack (1998). Several important
recommendations were proposed, and presently, the extent to which these have been taken into
account was evaluated. The two major paradigms, the Taylor Competitive Reaction Time Task and the
Point Subtraction Aggression Paradigm, still partly suffer from the same limitations. While theory
development has occurred in which attention to the subjective motivation and intention has increased,
this has not yet been fully adopted in practical laboratory assessment. Still too often, subjective goals
for variations in response patterns are ignored, and limited response alternatives are provided, as a
result of which laboratory measures still under represent the construct of aggression. Moreover,
empirical evidence is poor, and it is unclear why these recommendations have been ignored.
Fortunately, meaningful attempts have been made, and sometimes followed by other researchers.
There is a development to better operationalisations, but overall, the main conclusion as first stated by
Tedeschi and Quigley remains largely unaltered: contemporary laboratory aggression research lacks
construct validity.
“Research without theory is blind”
- Immanuel Kant-
2
Contents
INTRODUCTION
5
CHAPTER ONE AGGRESSION
7
1.1 Aggression
7
1. 1. 1 Aggression is…
7
1. 1. 2 Aggression is not…
8
1.2 Classification and modelling of aggressive behaviours
9
1. 2. 1 Hostile and Instrumental aggression
9
1. 2. 2 A new taxonomic system
9
1. 2. 3 A social-cognitive model of aggression: the GAM
10
1.3 Concluding Remarks
10
CHAPTER TWO TRADITIONAL PARADIGMS AND THE VALIDITY DEBATE
12
2.1 Traditional Paradigms
12
2.1.1 Teacher-Learner and Essay Evaluation Paradigms
12
2.1.2 The Taylor Competitive Reaction Time Task
13
2.1.3 Point Subtraction Aggression Paradigm
13
2.2 Validity Threats
14
2.2.1. Theoretical concerns
14
2.3.2. Non-aggressive response options
15
2.3.3. Social interaction
16
2.3 Empirical evidence of construct validity
16
2.3.1 Convergent validity
17
2.3.2 Discriminant validity
17
2.3.3 Indirect evidence
17
2.4 Concluding Remarks
18
3
CHAPTER THREE CONTEMPORARY LABORATORY AGGRESSION RESEARCH
19
3. 1. Modifications to existing paradigms
19
3. 1. 1 The Taylor Competitive Reaction Time Task
19
3. 1. 2 The Point Subtraction Aggression Paradigm
19
3. 2 Other Viewpoints
20
3. 2. 1 The Hot-Sauce paradigm
20
3. 2. 2 Competitive Spatial Tracking Task
21
3. 2. 3 Bungled Procedure Paradigm
22
3. 2. 4 Concluding remarks
22
3. 3. Limitations
22
3. 3. 1. Theoretical concerns
23
3. 3. 2. Non-aggressive response options
24
3. 3. 3. Social interaction
26
3.4 Concluding Remarks
26
CHAPTER FOUR RECENT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR CONSTRUCT VALIDITY
27
4. 1 Convergent validity
27
4. 2 Discriminant validity
28
4. 3 Indirect evidence
28
4. 4 Related issues
28
4. 5 Concluding Remarks
29
GENERAL CONCLUSION
31
REFERENCES
33
Attachment 1
38
4
INTRODUCTION
The aim of the present paper is to discuss and evaluate the construct validity of contemporary
laboratory aggression research. Approximately ten years ago, the validity of aggression paradigms was
heavily debated by Tedeschi and Quigley (1996; 2000), and Giancola and Chermack (1998).
According to Tedeschi and Quigley, most of research on physical aggressive behaviour in laboratory
settings depended on a limited set of paradigms lacking construct validity. Giancola and Chermack
replied by argueing that some paradigms were sufficiently adequate for measuring a construct as
complex as aggression, but agreed that some improvements were necessary. Tedeschi and Quigley
(1996; 2000) present with some important recommendations for advancing aggression research.
Therefore it was considered necessary to re-evaluate these issues and examine adequacy of current
laboratory measures of aggressive behaviour.
Some important limitations have been brought forward by Tedeschi and Quigley (1996; 2000). They
propose that traditional paradigms are aimed at “simple attack-retaliation situations” (Tedeschi &
Quigley , 1996, p. 163) while efforts should be aimed at examining subjective motivations and
intentions to be able to judge whether adherence to the definition of aggression has successfully been
achieved. They present with several significant recommendations. As opponents of construct validity
of laboratory aggression research, Giancola and Chermack (1998) aim to demonstrate that some of
these criticisms are unwarranted. They agree with the recommendations as suggested by Tedeschi and
Quigley (1996; 2000), but disagree with their statement that “these measures are severely limited in
their generalisability to real world aggression” and consider it to be a “gross overstatement”, and
remind that laboratory measurements are an “invaluable component of a multimethod approach”.
Finally, in a reply by Tedeschi and Quigley (2000) these authors argue the Giancola and Chermack
(1998) paper, in their view, has not adequately contributed to supporting validity on both conceptual
as well as methodological grounds. Currently, the validity of research paradigms is still under
investigation (Ferguson, 2007; Ritter & 2005; Giancola & Parrott, 2008).
Two paradigms in particular are widely used and many inferences about aggressive behaviour have
been based upon their findings. Given that aggression voorkomt in zowel de normale populatie als
verschillende, meerdere klinische populatie, it is important this behaviour be systematically and,
reliably, studied. To advance scientific knowledge on the processes and factors involved in physical
aggressive acts, it is paramount that validity of measures be assessed and positively confirmed.
The aim of the present is to examine to what extent these methodological and theoretical issues have
been taken into consideration in current investigations of controlled aggressive responding. Objectives
5
are to examine to what extent traditional paradigms have been modified, whether new paradigms have
been developed, and whether their validity has been assessed.
The present article will be divided into three chapters. Chapter one will present the reader with a brief
discussion of researchers’ attempts to delineate what aggression exactly is. Chapter two will describe
the more traditional paradigms used to measure aggressive behaviour in laboratory settings and will
provide with a summary of the validity debate between Tedeschi and Quigley (1996; 2000), and
Giancola and Chermack (1998). Finally, in chapter three, contemporary laboratory research into
physical aggression will be discussed. Focus will be on modifications of traditional paradigms and
more recently developed laboratory designs. Empirical evidence for construct validity will be
discussed.
6
CHAPTER ONE
AGGRESSION
1.1 AGGRESSION
Before we can re-examine laboratory measurement procedures in aggression research, we need to have
a clear understanding of what it is that makes that a certain act or behaviour is perceived as aggressive.
Consider for instance, a farmer chopping the head off a chicken. Or a boxer who knocks out his
opponent. Situations like this are generally not conceived aggressive. But what about a shopkeeper
who shoots a man stealing his takings? Many difficulties arise when trying to explicitly state what
aggression entails, and also, what it does not entail.
Or, as Parrott & Giancola (2007) put it, “[i]ndeed, the existence of so many different
conceptualizations of aggression reflects the struggle by researchers to define this construct.” (p. 282).
The difficulties of defining aggression can be traced to the fact that there are many different kinds of
aggressive behaviour, and the manner and extent of aggression that will be exhibited depends on a
multitude of factors which all need to be considered when attempting to explain aggressive behaviour.
1. 1. 1 Aggression is...
Several definitions and variations thereof have been offered to explain aggressive acts. One
influencing definition of aggression came from Buss (1961). He defined an aggressive act as “a
response that delivers noxious stimuli to another organism” (pg. 1).
Other definitions that have been put forward are “behaviour aimed at causing either physical or
psychological pain” (Aronson et al., 1997, p.324) and “the intent to harm or otherwise injure another
person, an implication inferred from events preceding or following that act of aggression” (Kaplan &
Sadock, 2003). As has often been noted (e.g. Parrott & Giancola, 2007) components such as the intent
of the actor and the motivation of target are important to include in the conceptualisation. That is,
harming another living being without the intent to do so is not considered aggressive. Similarly,
situations in which the target consents with the harm-doing (e.g. inside the boxing-ring) are not
considered aggressive either. The above mentioned definitions are limited in that they neglect either
one or both of these components.
7
In line with these issues, Baron (1977) and more recently Baron and Richardson (1994) extended the
definition to include the state of the target, and described the concept as “any form of behaviour
directed toward the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to avoid such
treatment (Baron & Richardson, 1994; pg. 7).
A more recent modification ws suggested by defining aggression as “any behaviour directed toward
another individual that is carried out with the proximate intent to cause harm. In addition, the
perpetrator must believe that the behaviour will harm the target, and that the target is motivated to
avoid the behaviour” (Bushman & Anderson, 2001; Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Tedeschi & Felson,
1995). In this definition, a distinction is made between proximate, immediate goals and ultimate or
primary goals. The important difference here is that intent is necesary only as a proximate goal, and
that different types of aggression emerge only at the ultimate level. For instance, this way, the
shopkeeper who shoots at the man stealing his takings is performing an aggressive act. The proximate
intent or immediate goal is to harm the target, but the ultimate or primary goal is to defend oneself and
his belongings. As this example illustrates, it is a comprehensive definition. Contemporary research
might not yet have fully adopted these recent definitions, but in reviewing recent laboratory aggression
research, where applicable, this definition will be kept in mind.
1. 1. 2 Agression is not...
There are several constructs that are more or less related to aggression. Violence can be defined as a
destructive act against a person or object (www.northern.ac.uk, 2003) and is one of the ways in which
aggression is expressed. This form of aggression is called physical aggression and is one of the most
widely investigated form of aggressive behaviour.
Hostility is an attitudinal/cognitive construct comprised of enduring cognitions (Parrott & Giancola,
2007). Hostility does not need to be expressed for it to be there, it is an underlying tendency, while
aggression is a form of behavioural expression. However, expressed hostility is probably similar to
aggression (Parrott & Giancola, 2007).
Anger is said to be different from aggression for several reasons (cf. Parrot & Giancola, 2007). First,
it is an experiential, emotional state whereas aggression is an expressive, behavioural process. Second,
anger is not necessary for aggression to occur (e.g. instrumental aggression) nor is anger necessarily
expressed by aggression. Finally, unlike the expression of aggression, the experience of anger does not
require an explicit target (Berkowitz, 1993).
In an attempt to better grasp the complete array of behaviours that can be considered agressive,
researchers have offered numerous ways of classifiying, and modelling, aggression and aggressive acts.
To these we will turn next.
8
1.2 CLASSIFICATION AND MODELLING OF AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOURS
1. 2. 1 Hostile and Instrumental aggression
Numerous subtypes have been put forth to classify aggressive acts. However, the most frequently
mentioned, adopted, and well-known dichotomous conceptualisation of aggression, is the distinction
between hostile and instrumental aggression (Parrot & Giancola, 2007). Instrumental aggression is
the expression of aggression as a means to an end rather than as an act of retribution or defence and is
expressed to obtain some objective (power, money, sexual gratification, or some other goal) other than
inflicting injury on the victim (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Parrot & Giancola, 2007; Berkowitz
1993). Key features of instrumental aggression are goal-directedness and planning/preparation. It
usually involves little or no provocation and is driven by goals, not emotions; emotional arousal (e.g.
anger, hostility) is relatively low or is secondary to the act (Cornell et al., 1996). Key feature of hostile
aggression is that is is driven by emotional motivation instigated by provocation (Berkowitz, 1993;
Cornell et al., 1996; Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Other frequently used terms are affective,
impulsive, reactive, retaliatory (Parrott & Giancola, 2007).
While the idea of clear difference between hostile/reactive motivated and instrumentally motivated
aggression is supported by forensic evidence (McEllistrem, 2004) and was recently demonstrated to
contribute to a clearer understanding of the motivations for aggressive behavior (Polman, 2008), the
functionality of the distinction has been argued (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). The distinction is not
considered elaborate enough to capture the whole of aggression and fails to consider aggressive
behaviour that is motivated by multiple goals. It is reminiscent of the distinction between controlled
(i.e. planned, goal-directed instrumental aggression) and automatic (i.e. impulsive, reactive, unplanned)
processing, which is conceived of as being a continuum, and the Hostile/Instrumental distinction
should be perceived similar (Cornell et al., 1996; Bushman & Anderson, 2001) . That is, hostile
aggressive actions are not always completely unplanned or reactive, and not all instrumental acts are
solely goal-directed and unaffected by emotion or provocation. Support for this notion comes from a
study suggesting that approximately half of the aggressive incidents cannot be categorized as hostile or
instrumental (Barratt & Slaughter, 1998).
1. 2. 2. A New Taxonomic System
In replacement of the Hostile/Instrumental distinction, Parrott and Giancola (2007) present a new
taxonomic system based on two levels of expression and several distinct subtypes. The authors argued
9
that the operational definition of aggressive behaviour still lacks adequate conceptual transparency and
simplicity, causing variations in measurement tools of aggression, and ineffectiveness of aggression
research. They present with a system to describe and classify aggression along two continuums or axis
of expression, specifically, active versus passive and direct versus indirect. Five subtypes of
aggression (physical, verbal, postural, damage to property and theft) can exist anywhere along these
dimensions. The advantage of te taxonomy is that the different types of aggression that can be
classified are a ten-fold of possibilities with the more traditional distinction of hostile and instrumental
aggression.
1. 2. 3 A Social Cognitive Model of Aggression: the GAM
Bushman and Anderson (2002) and Joireman et al. (2003) propose a mediational, social-cognitive
model of aggression, the General Aggression Model. In this framework, personality is defined as a
collection of stable knowledge structures by which the social world is interpreted and behaviour is
guided. These knowledge structures influence processes of perception, decision-making, and action.
Briefly put, the emphasis is on person and situation inputs; heavily interconnected affective, cognitive
and arousal routes; and the outcomes of information processes (appraisal and decision). These
informational processes are placed on a continuum from automatic to controlled and they are
expressed in actions ranging from thoughtful to impulsive action (Anderson & Bushman, 2002, p. 34).
In a feedback loop, the final (behavioural) outcomes become part of the person and situation inputs for
the next episode.
Berkowitz’s (1993) theory had a major influence on aggression research, and at least some of the
limitations in aggression measurement originate form this theory (Tedeschi & Quigley, 1996; 2000).
Has laboratory research adapted to modifications of definition and accompanying theory?
1.3 CONCLUDING REMARKS
Aggression is a complex construct because there are various different motives for resorting to
aggression and several different expression modes, together creating numerous subtypes of aggressive
behaviour.
Developments in past years have lead to a more comprehensible definition of human aggression, better
corresponding to the depth of detail of constructs of human behaviour. In the literature, aggression has
been classified in several ways. One frequently adopted distinction is between hostile and instrumental
aggression. However, its contributive value has been argued, and other classification systems that
capture a wider range of aggressive exhibitions have been put forward. One such system is a new
10
taxonomy which is more transparent and includes more dimensions and is therefore argued to possess
superior capability to grasp the complexity involved in human aggressive behaviour.
Most of aggression research is based on assumptions coming from Berkowitz’ neo-cognitivists’ theory
of aggression. Adjusted models have been developed, one such model that seems promising is the
General Affective Model. Interesting now is to consider to what extent these changes have positively
affected or influenced practical execution of laboratory measurement.
11
CHAPTER TWO
TRADITIONAL PARADIGMS AND THE VALIDITY DEBATE
Before we can evaluate changes in laboratory aggression measurement in the past years, the traditional
paradigms and their limitations will be reviewed. This chapter will first present a brief description of
the traditional paradigms that were the subject of the Tedeschi and Quigley (1996; 2000) and Giancola
and Chermack (1998) validity discussion. Next, the main critique following the debate will be
summarised. And lastly, the empirical evidence supporting validity introduced by the authors will
briefly be critically evaluated.
2.1 TRADITIONAL PARADIGMS
2.1.1 Teacher-Learner (TLP) and Essay Evaluation Paradigms (EEP)
Teacher-Learner Paradigm (TLP) One well-known measure of physical aggression was the Buss
Aggression Machine, or the Teacher/Learner paradigm (Buss, 1961; cf. Giancola & Parrot, 2008).
Subjects are told that “the research is concerned with the effects of punishment on learning” and that
they are to engage in a learning task in which they have the role of teachers. The learner, a confederate,
has to learn a list of word pairs. In the test phase, when the ‘teacher’ calls the first word, the learner
has to reproduce the second. Both are in different rooms and communicate via intercoms. Correct
responses are reinforced verbally, while incorrect responses are punished by means of delivering
shocks with the ‘aggression machine’ in front of them to which learner is connected by a finger
electrode. Dependant variables are shock intensity, duration and sometimes frequency. Intensity can be
varied depending on which button is pressed (pressing 1 delivers the lowest intensity, pressing 10 the
highest). Duration is manipulated by how long the button is held down. Sometimes subjects are given
a shock of intermediate intensity so they can experience its unpleasantness. In reality, the learner never
receives shocks.
Essay Evaluation Paradigm (EEP) The EEP (Berkowitz, 1962) has been developed as an improved
measurement tool relative to the TLP. In this protocol, subjects are informed that they are to evaluate
another person’s (a confederate) written product by delivering shocks (Tedeschi &Quigley, 1996). The
subjects will also be evaluated themselves. After the short essays have been written, the evaluation
begins. The subjects are provoked by having the confederate evaluate their essay first. Physical
aggression is operationalized as shock frequency, ranging from 1 to 10 (max), and the confederate
12
gives the subject on average one to seven shocks. Typically, subjects evaluate the confederate’s essay
similar and subjects deliver a similar amount of shocks (Tedeschi &Quigley, 1996).
The main criticism for both has been that, due to the cover stories of evaluating and teaching/helping,
behaviour might be driven by altruistic motives, and not aggression (Tedeschi &Quigley, 1996). Other
criticisms will be dealt with in a later section. Both parties in the debate agree that the following two
paradigms are better measures and are more widely used and accepted (Tedeschi & Quigley, 1996;
2000; Giancola & Chermak, 1998).
2.1.2 The Taylor Competitive Reaction Time Task (TCRTT)
In the original TCRTT, or Taylor Aggression Paradigm (Taylor, 1967), shock electrodes are attached
to the wrist and care is taken to make the subjects believe there actually is an opponent in a nearby
room. Subjects are told they are engaging in a competitive reaction time game. For each participant,
the threshold is determined. At the beginning of each trial they are instructed to select (by pressing 1
of 10 buttons) any of the 10 intensities of shock they wish their opponent to receive. They are
furthermore told that whoever loses the game receives the shock at the preset intensity, at the end of
each trial. The intensity set by the ‘opponent’ gradually increases as the game progresses, providing
different levels of provocation.
The TCRTT is credited for not using a cover story (Tedeschi &Quigley, 1996; Giancola & Chermak,
1998). Although they are not exactly told what is being measured, this is quite normal for laboratory
paradigms and generally not considered to be an issue (Giancola & Chermak, 1998). At least subjects
are told that they are in competition with one another, and not that they are helping someone while in
reality, what supposedly is being measured is a rather negative way of interacting.
2.1.3 Point Subtraction Aggression Paradigm (PSAP)
The PSAP uses point and money subtraction as aversive stimulus. This paradigm was developed by
Cherek (1967) and has been revised more recently (Cherek et al. 1992). Typically, subjects are told
they are paired with an opponent (situated in another room) and that the aim is to earn money. There
are three response options. Pressing ‘button A’ a 100 times is coupled with monetary reinforcement
(usually 10 cents). Pressing ‘button B’, the point subtraction (PS) button, subtracts 10 cents from the
opponent when pressed 10 times. And finally, ‘button C’ is typically an escape button, initiating an
interval in which the participant is protected from monetary subtraction. Physical aggression is
operationalised as number of times the point subtraction button was pressed. In the Cherek et al. (1971)
study, all subjects indicated subtraction of money was experienced as very aversive.
13
Provocation is initiated by periodic subtraction of 10 cents, which was attributed to the other person.
In several studies, aggressive responding (B presses) after provocation are reinforced by initiation of a
protection interval. Whereas the original PSAP lasts three hours, more recent versions take about 30
minutes to complete (cf. Golomb et al., 2007).
The PSAP is said to possess several strengths. Unlike in the TCRTT, subjects can choose not too
subtract points, whereas in other paradigms, subjects are required to use noxious stimuli (e.g. Giancola
& Chermak, 1998; Cherek et al., 2000). Second, the frequency of aggressive responses can be varied
and aggressive responding can be initiated at any time (Cherek et al., 2000). And third, use of
subtraction as aversive stimulus allows repetitive testing as well as testing in situations where shocks
cannot be used, such as when testing children (Cherek et al., 2000).
2.2 VALIDITY THREATS
Briefly defined, construct validity refers to the degree to which a particular measure accounts for the
construct that it is supposed to measure. The following limitations have been pointed out by Tedeschi
and Quigley (1996; 2000) as threatening the construct validity of laboratory aggression measurement.
2.2.1. Theoretical concerns
Parrott & Giancola (2007) correctly note how absence of consensus regarding definition affects
laboratory aggression measurement due to great variability in operationalisations of the construct
(Parrot & Giancola, 2007). Clearly, paramount is for the experimental designs and its measures to
correspond to the definition of aggression. This matter has also been carefully discussed by Tedeschi
and Quigley (1996; 2000) and they note that only a small set of paradigms is responsible for a bulk of
data obtainded by laboratory measurement of aggression, stressing the importance of determining
validity of these measures. In their view, none of the traditional paradigms adequately assess the
construct of aggression. According to Giancola and Chermak (1998), in the TCRTT (and its modified
version) and the PSAP, physical aggression is operationalised in line with the Baron and Richardson
(1994) definition. In their view, when subjects deliver a shock to the opponent, this can only be
interpreted as intenteds to harm. They furthermore assume that it is clear, given the competitive nature
of the task, that the opponents are motivated to avoid such harm, since point subtraction is harmful and
threatening to one’s ego as well as financially. Although this is likely, it is presumptuous to say that
this is ‘clearly’ so without consistently questioning the subjects themselves. Certainly not all subjects
will feel experience the situation as a threat to their selfesteem, but there is no way to tell upfront, or
adhoc, who will and who will not. Therefore, no statements such as these can be made without
14
sufficient evidence. Stimulus noxiousness’ might also influence their “aggressive” responding to the
opponent. That is, subjects might set low intensities with the intent of persuading the opponent to
conform to their strategy. Then, there is no intent to harm, but only motivation to avoid.
If the intention of an actor is the basis for defining the concept of aggression, then measures of this
intention need to be incorporated in laboratory experiments. For example, if subjects are told they are
engaging in a competitive game, how can we be sure it the intent of their responses is to do harm and
not merely to compete? What’s more, apparently, no correlation exists between competition and
TCRTT responses, a finding used by Giancola and Chermack (1998) to support validity. However, it
proves that subjects’ interpretation of the situation cannot assumed to be what experts tell them it
should be.
2.2.2. Non-aggressive response options
Tedeschi and Quigley (1996; 2000) furthermore note the absence of non-aggressive response options,
and the inability of the paradigms to measure choice behaviour. The instruction for playing the
TCRTT involves that participants are required to administer shocks to the loser of the game. This is
the only manner for participants to respond to provocation and/or the only manner in which they can
interact with the opponent. Choosing the lowest intensity has been argued to be a valid non-aggressive
option because this intensity allegedly is not harmful (Giancola & Chermack, 1998). This was
supported by limited evidence of verbal reports, indicating that when wanting to perform a
nonaggressive act, participants chose the lowest intensity. Still, this does not prove that chosing the
lowest intensity is always meant to be non-aggressive. For instance, it might be out of expectations of
equal retaliation. Moreover, when response options are limited, and administration of shocks is
required, behaviour might become influenced by (unintentional) cues from the experimenter
suggesting what is expected from the participant. If there is only one way to respond, subjects easily
grasp what is expected from them, regardless of whether they have the same interpretation of the
situation.
Some have suggested the PSAP is a better measure than the TCRTT because the PSAP is said to offer
a nonaggressive response option (Cherek et al., 2000; Giancola & Chermak, 1998). Non-aggressive
responding on the PSAP is operationalised as collection of points for oneself. Yet, as Tedeschi and
Quigley (1996; 2000) convincingly point out, behaving “aggressively” on the PSAP is less effortful
than behaving non-aggressively. It requires 100 button presses to collect one point, but only ten to
subtract one. In addition, the only way for the participants to interact is by using the point subtraction
button (Tedeschi & Quigley, 2000), and therefore, motives for showing ‘aggression’ might be
different than the intent to hurt someone.
Data of experiments where subjects do have alternatives options is surprisingly scarce. Tedeschi and
Quigley (1996) refer to one study in which participants could respond with either punishment or
15
reward. Women frequently chose to reward a confederate who had insulted them, instead of choosing
to punish them, suggesting this certainly is important to consider when reviewing current research.
2.2.3. Social interaction
An important component of aggressive behaviour and bodily harm is social interaction. In real life,
aggression is usually expressed towards someone in close proximity. Many incidents are even
expressed against persons who are not even involved in the instigation for the aggressive feelings,
simply because these victims are within reach. In all discussed paradigms, subjects and confederates
are in different rooms and are not even able to see each other. Tedeschi and Quigley (1996) point out
that when the noxious stimulation is administered at a distance, the generalisability of the findings is
rather questionable. In support, they refer to a study by Milgram (1963) which demonstrates that
“when physical contact is required to administer the ‘harm’, participants are quite reluctant to do so.”
(Tedeschi & Quigley, 1996, p. 168). Then again, it is not surprising to find that a sample of the general
population is not eager to do harm to another individual, that is why laboratory indicators of behaviour
should not be made too explicit. Individual differences will probably not emerge under such extreme
circumstances as in the Milgram experiment, so the necessity of increasing proximity and social
interaction remains unclear. And of course, ethical considerations also complicate the issue.
2.3 EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCT VALIDITY
In this section we will briefly discuss the strength of some of the evidence brought forward by
Giancola and Chermack (1998) in response to the critical comments expressed by Tedeschi and
Quigley (1996; 2000).
Generally, construct validity is assessed in two ways. Convergent validity refers to the degree to
which an operation is similar to other operations that it theoretically should also be similar to. For
example, to show the convergent validity of an aggression paradigm, responses on the experimental
test should be highly correlated with other measures of aggression, such as questionnaires or other
experimental designs. Discriminant validity is the degree to which an operation is distinct from other
operations that it theoretically should not be similar to (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; www.wikipedia.org,
2008).
16
2.3.1 Convergent validity
Any measure that assesses aggressive behaviour is assumed to correlate with related constructs such as
violence, hostility and to correlate modestly with anger.
With respect to the TCRTT, three of the four studies cited in favour of the TCRTT used the BussDurkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI). However, in a recent article, Parrot & Giancola (2007)
convincingly argue the BDHI and its subscales are invalid measures of aggression, and that their
meaning or value are unclear.
No evidence was introduced to examine the relationship between different laboratory aggression
measurements, which should be expected to correlate at least moderately.
2.3.2 Discriminant validitty
To demonstrate discriminant validity of the TCRTT Giancola and Chermack (1998) refer to a study in
which TCRTT responses did not correlate with competition (Bernstein et al 1987), among others.
Although this might be expected considering that the dependant measure, selected shock intensity, is
supposed to be uncorrelated to performance on the reaction time task. Still, Tedeschi and Quigley
(2000) suggest this could also imply subjects are not following instructions (Tedeschi & Quigley,
2000). Clearly, the exact relationship between competition and ‘aggressive’ responses on laboratory
tasks needs to be further investigated.
There was no mention of studies examining discriminant validity for the PSAP, and this absence was
not discussed.
2.3.3 Indirect evidence
If a paradigm possesses construct validity, it should be able to differentiate between high and low
aggressive individuals (Giancola & Chermack, 1998). There is some preliminary evidence for the
potential of classic paradigms to discriminate between groups (cf. Giancola & Chermack, 1998), more
recent evidence will be discussed in the following chapter.
Giancola and Chermack (1998) argue that additional validity is gained by gathering indirect evidence
demonstrating the theorised influence of assumed facilitators or inhibitors of aggression. However, it
seems premature to gather indirect evidence, and so its value remains questionable. if the convergent
and discriminant validity are still debated,
17
2.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS
In summary, Tedeschi and Quigley (1996; 2000) argue convincingly that the major paradigms lack
construct validity and have serious weaknesses.
Of the traditional paradigms, the Teacher/Learner and the Essay Evaluation paradigms were the first
two frequently adopted paradigms. Nonetheless, they share several weaknesses, one of which is the
use of cover stories. This is particularly problematic for aggression measurement because of the
importance of actor intentions in defining the construct. The Taylor Competitive Reaction Time Task
and Point Subtraction Aggression Paradigm are considered less limited for measurement of aggression
and have become the most frequently used methods for studying aggression in a controlled
environment.
All paradigms have been criticised for lacking construct validity and adherence to the definition
because motivation and intentions are not measured. On the contrary, proponents of validity of
laboratory measures argue this is an overstatement because the stimuli are aversive, and subjects are
motivated to avoid them. But, these assumptions are not empirically supported. A second major
limitation that was debated, also relevant to all four paradigm,s concerns the limited response
alternatives that are available.
Another strong argument in favour of the arguments of Tedeschi and Quigley (1996; 2000) is that
there appears to be a serious lack in empirical evidence in support of construct validity for each of the
paradigms. Moreover, most of the evidence that is referred to is either indirect evidence or obtained
using invalid measures.
Opinions on construct validity may be divided, all parties agree that some limitations need to be
accounted for if we wish to meaningfully understand the concept of aggression. This lack of
correspondence between theory and practice can be dealt with from two different approaches. One is
to adjust the theory in such a way that it is possible for laboratory operationalisations to better adhere
to the conceptualisation of the construct. This has been done, or attempted, as a modified definition as
well as a more comprehensive social cognition theory have been offered. Another is to adjust the
measurement tool so that these operationalisations fit the theory appropriately. Therefore, we will now
discuss more recent laboratory measurement and examine the extent to which the criticisms have been
incorporated and adjustments have been made or new paradigms have been developed.
18
CHAPTER THREE
CONTEMPORARY LABORATORY AGGRESSION RESEARCH
The extent to which the major limitations have been taken into account in theorising and methodology
of aggressive behaviour will be evaluated here. What adjustments have been made to traditional
measures and what new ideas have been brought forward?
Following Bushman and Anderson (2001), in this chapter intent and motive will be referred to as
proximate (or immediate) and ultimate (or primary) goals (see Tedeschi and Felson, 1995, for similar
terms).
3. 1. MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING PARADIGMS
Here we will consider modifications of the Point Subtraction Aggression Paradigm and the Taylor
Competitive Reaction Time Task in recent investigations.
3. 1. 1 The Taylor Competitive Reaction Time Task
Anderson & Murphy (2003) presented with a significant addition directly relating to the main point of
critique of Tedeschi and Quigley (1996; 2000). To assess subject’s goals, these researchers developed
a short six item questionnaire (see attachment), consisting of two items to index instrumental motives,
and four to assess hostile motivation (the ultimate goals). Importantly, this procedure has been adopted
by other researchers (e.g. Anderson et al., 2008; Arriaga et al., 2008).
Additionally, several studies modified the TCRTT to include a non-aggressive response option.
Zeichner et al. (2003) explicitly mention the validity discussion and specifically aimed to develop a
better tool by offering additional response options in their Response Choice Aggression Paradigm
(RCAP; Zeichner et al., 1999). Subjects could choose between administering a shock after winning,
losing, or not at all, better approximating real-life situations. Similarly, Reidy et al. (2008) modified
the TCRTT and delivery of shocks was made optional; intensities were not required to be set at the
beginning of each trial, nor were aggressive responses coupled to losing or winning. Subjects could
choose to simply continue playing, instead of interfering with the opponents attempts to win, at the
expense of their own gains. Finally, in several studies in which aggressive responding was
operationalised by a loud auditory stimulus, non-aggressive responding was made optional by having
subjects choose between intensities (volumes) ranging from zero to ten (e.g. Anderson & Murphy,
2003; Anderson et al., 2004; 2008; Arriaga et al., 2008). This is a clear improvement to the traditional
19
CRTT where the lowest intensity (1) is considered “clearly” non-aggressive (Giancola & Chermack,
1998).
Several minor adjustments have been made as well. Aiming to increase the social interactive
component of aggressive behaviour, Lotze et al (2007) made it possible for participants to view their
opponents reaction when receiving the noxious stimulation (aversive pressure on the finger by means
of compressed air).
In other cases, additional dependant measures have been added, for instance, Zeichner et al. (2003)
added measures of proportion of trials in which highest intensity was chosen, and unprovoked
aggression (intensity and duration of the first shock, and the number of trials before the first shock was
administered).
3. 1. 2 Point Subtraction Aggression Paradigm
With respect to the availability of alternive response options and the incorporation of subjective
interpretations, no consistent, delibarate adjustments have been made, suggesting the criticism was not
taken seriously (e. g. Cherek et al., 2000; Tcheremissine et al., 2005; Bailly & King, 2006; Nouvion et
al., 2007; Carré & McCormick, 2008; Lieving et al., 2008).
3. 2 OTHER VIEWPOINTS
3. 2. 1 The Hot-Sauce paradigm (HSP)
Lieberman et al. (1999) developed a paradigm in which administration of hot sauce was considered an
effective measure for physical aggression. Provocation was induced by either one of two possibilities
(cf. McGregor et al., 1998). In some cases, subjects were instructed to read an essay supposedly
written by another participant. Depending on the condition to which they were assigned, the content of
this essay would either strongly agree or strongly disagree with the participants own cultural
worldview. In other cases, subjects had to consume a sample of either a neutral or noxious juice which
they were told was prepared for them by another participant. After the provocation manipulation,
subjects are given a chance to respond to the virtual participant by determining the amount of very
spicy hot sauce the other has to consume. They are instructed to prepare (in the context of a food
tasting experiment) a plate with three chips and adequate (spicy) sauce.
This paradigm has several interesting advantages. Importantly, subjects were aware that the other did
not like spicy food and would have to consume the whole sample, so they knew their actions could
result in actual physical harm in another person, geeft minder afwijking van definitie; betere
20
operationalisatie. Also, the paradigm possesses ecological validity because incidents with
administering noxious food also take place in real-life, for instance, in child-abuse cases (Lieberman et
al., 1999). Finally, the issue of requiring interaction is overcome by characteristics of the aversive
stimulus. It is a potential means of administering physical harm but for this it is not necessary for those
involved to be in close proximity of one another.
3. 2. 2 The Competitive Spatial Tracking Task (CSTT)
Recently, the so-called Competitive Spatial Tracking Time Task (CSTT) was developed by J. Savage
(in press). In developing this paradigm, care is taken to incorporate the limitations characterising
earlier attempts to capture laboratory evoked aggression. In this task, subjects are told they are
engaging in a competitive reaction time game with another opponent, which is unknown to them and
in fact non-existent. Subjects are instructed to track a small dot across the screen by using the mouse
pointer. Whoever does this fastest is the winner of the game and will be rewarded with extra points.
They are furthermore told there is an option to annoy the opponent by pressing on a button on the
screen by which they can deliver pressure to them. They themselves can also expect to receive
“pressure” of different intensities. The pressure is only delivered at the end of each trials, and only
when a trial was lost.. They are told the opponent received similar instructions. The participant’s
finger is then attached in a box. Pressure is delivered, or received, through a small metal plate pressing
down on the subjects’ finger. Before the start of the experiment, the participant’s maximum threshold
is set. They are also told they will be able to view their opponent’s responses to the pressure via a web
cam connection. In reality, these are pre-recorded images, and the same for all participants.
This paradigm possesses several major improvements. Perhaps most important is that subjects are
inquired about their motives and intentions at the conclusion of the experiment. To assess hostile and
instrumental motives, subjects are asked whether they used the option to annoy the opponent, and if so,
what their motives were. A second major improvement is that participants have a choice in how to
interact and can also choose to compete and continue playing the game, trying to outperform the
opponent. Additionally, while in the PSAP it might be more convenient to respond aggressively as
opposed to non-aggressively, in this task it is less convenient. Pressure can only be adminstered at the
expense of the likelihood of winning, as its necessary to move away from the competitive task in order
to set the intensity of the pressure to be administered. Moreover, because the pressure is delivered at
the end of each trial, it does not interfere with the opponents’ game. The aversive stimulation clearly
does not directly interfere with the opponent’s peformance and merely annoys or irritates, a fine
operationalisation of aggressive behaviour. And finally, frequency and initiation of aggressive
responding are free to vary, and can be initiated anytime, unlike in TCRTT-based paradigms.
21
3. 2. 3 Bungled Procedure Paradigm (BPP)
One interesting attempt of developing a new paradigm was undertaken by Russell et al. (1996; 2002).
Participants are given the opportunity to shoot at a human target with a paintball gun. The target is a
woman, and the task is presented as a ‘‘novel form of male entertainment’’ (Russell et al., 1996).
Aggression in this paradigm is operationalised as the power of the gun chosen (from an array of guns
of varying power) multiplied by the number of pellets elected to be used to shoot at the target. In
reality, participants never actually shoot at the target, as they are told that there has been a mistake (the
‘‘Bungle’’ of the title), that they are in fact in the control condition, and that they are not therefore
required to shoot at the target.
A very powerful strength of this paradigm potential to measure intent, as the actual aggressive
behaviour never takes place. It furthermore possesses ecological validity, since many real world
violent acts, such as homicide, involve firearms (Russel et al., 1996). Finally, participants are not
provoked beforehand but also allows the possibility to study more reactive aggression in response to
provocation. Although this paradigm certainly possesses face validity, there is no additional mention
in the literature of studies using this measure, and therefore, it will not be discussed as extensively.
3. 2. 4 Concluding Remarks
While new ideas have been brought forward, the Taylor Competitive Reaction Time Game and the
Point Subtraction Aggression Paradigm have remained the two most frequently adopted paradigms.
Whereas several studies have been conducted with adapted versions of the TCRTT, no such attempts
have been made in studies with the PSAP. Also, studies adopting the more recently developed
paradigms are scarce.
3. 3. VALIDITY THREATS
The interesting question is to what extent research has improved in the past ten years since the debate.
In this section, the main limitations as outlined by Tedeschi & Quigley (1996; 2000) will be applied to
the current research summarised above. Have their criticisms been satisfactory incorporated?
Moreover, as Tedeschi and Quigley (1996; 2000) propose, one reason for neglecting to take subjects’
conceptions of the situation into account is the theory on which these paradigms (originating from
1967-1971) were built on. According to the authors, in Berkowitz’ (1993) neo-cognitive theory of
aggression, motives are considered unimportant, or secondary, and this neglect has been adhered to in
measrurement tools as well. However, by now, new models have been presented. Promising is the
22
General Aggression Model developed by Anderson and Bushman (2002; also see Joiremena, et al.,
2003). Together with their model they present with a more specified definition. In both the model and
the descriptive conceptualisation of aggression, motives and intent play an important role. Have these
recent theoretical developments aided adherence to the efinition of aggression? And have researchers
taken hold of the issues attributed to traditional aradigms?
3. 3. 1. Theoretical concerns
An important addition to traditional measures is the consideration of subjects’ intentions and
motivations by some researchers. For instance, Anderson & Murphy (2003) developed a six-item
questionnaire to assess hostile and instrumental motivation, and subject motivations are also assessed
through self report in the CSTT. Still, many researchers to date continue to neglect to consider this
issue. Even when a modified definition has been offered, which specifies the role of motivation and
intent to a greater extent, clear statements about how certain designs and paradigms might fit in there
have not been encountered. It seems little effort to hypothesise about subjects’ ‘primary goals’ for
their behaviour, and relatively little effort to later on confirm them. Apparently, the importance needs
to be stressed once more.
Tedeschi &Quigley (1996; 2000) made several suggestions of what is being measured if not
aggression. This was true for the traditional paradigms but unfortunately, still holds for most recent
attempts. It is possible that the ultimate goal is reciprocity, and that subjects retaliate at a level
consistent with how they have been treated by the confederate. In effect, this is even what is expected
in paradigms using provocation. Then, individual variations in responses reflect variations in feelings
of injustice, instead of variations in aggression.
Alternatively, the ultimate goal may be conformity to the strategy adopted by the opponent.
Conversaly, the primary goal may be one of social control. Either aiming to persuade the opponent to
refrain from using high intensities or subjects might set low intensities for the opponent, to persuade
them to conform to their strategy. And finally, the behaviour might be aimed at self-preservation. The
goal might be to do well, hoping for a positive opinion from the experimenter with respect to one’s
adequacy compared to the other participant. For example, in the Hot-Sauce Paradigm, since
participants are told they are participating in a food-tasting experiment. Intent to contribute to the aims
of the experimenter may influence how subjects respond, i.e. how much sauce they chose allocate to
their opponent.
Other changes to increase operational adherence are researchers’ attempts to enhance the aversive
stimulus’ noxiousness (e.g. Lieberman et al., 1999; Giancola & Parrott, 2008; Kramer et al., 2008;).
For instance, in the Kramer et al. (2008) TCRTT study, aversiveness is enhanced by subtracting
money, to ensure the subject is motivated to avoid, so that the operationalisation better adheres to the
definition. In the Lieberman et al. (1999) HSP study, it was ensured that participants understood the
23
hot sauce would be harmful to the other person. Presumably, this is done to decrease the amount of
alternative primary goals subjects might have. However, this could confound results as well by
interfering with subjects’ original goal for administering the aversion. That is, variatons in
aversiveness may cause variations in motivations to avoid.
Finally, compliance to the Parrott & Giancola (2008) taxonomy reveals that the TCRTT (and the
CSTT), PSAP, and HSP all measure different forms of aggression. That is, direct and active physical
aggression in TCRT and CSTT paradigms, indirect and active physical aggression in the HSP, and
indirect and active theft in the PSAP. Furthermore, the design of the HSP does not allow iterative
measurements, in contrast to the other paradigms.
These differences are not necessarily confounding, as long as researchers take note of them. What
form of aggression is measured should be explicitly stated and should correspond to the research
question at hand.
3. 3. 2. Non-aggressive response options
With respect to reponse options, several studies have incorporated truly non-aggressive response
options, followig the recommendations suggested by Tedeschi and Quigley (1996; 2000). This makes
measurement of aggressive responding possible under conditions where alternative means of dealing
with the situation or frustration are present. However, all of these studies used some variation to the
TCRTT. No recent consistent adjustments have been made in studies using the PSAP.
The argument of Giancola and Chermack (1998) that non-aggressive responding is possible is
questionable. That is, there are two kinds of ‘non-aggressive’ responses. One kind is non-aggressive as
in the opposite of aggressive, or neutral compared to aggressive. The other kind is non-aggressive as in
not adhering to the operationalisation of aggressive behaviour, and could therefore be almost anything.
Of course, in laboratory settings, a true non-aggressive response option should be made available, that
is either neutral to, or opposite from, the operationalisation of aggression. Similarly, selecting the
lowest intensity in CRTT paradigms is not truly non-aggressive.
The fact that in most versions of the PSAP response options are unbalanced, as was pointed out by
Tedeschi and Quigley (1996; 2000), has largely remained unaltered (e.g. Cherek et al., 1993; 2000;
Bailly & King, 2006). The effort it takes for each of the three response options is unmatched, and it is
not clear as to why this is so. In an recent variation of PSAP, response options were matched (Nouvion
et al. 2007). In an attempt to assess instrumental aggression, participants were not provoked by
occasional point subtractions, and points subtracted from the opponent were added to their earnings.
The authors argued that this operationalisation of aggression indexes instrumental behaviour because
responses were goal-directed (i.e. earning money) and not provoked. In this version, the number of
presses needed to collect one point for oneself was equal to the number of presses needed to subtract
money from the opponent. This directly relates to the critique of Tedeschi and Quigley (1996; 2000)
24
of unequal response options in the PSAP. However, again, the reasoning behind this adjustment is
unclear. In an earlier study (Cherek et al., 1992) the number of presses needed for an aggressive
response was varied and could be either 20, 40, 80 or even 100, creating one condition in which
response alternatives were matched. But here, there is no mentioning of this being a reflection of
instrumental aggression, apparently because participants were provoked. Moreover, while introducing
the study, the authors even argue that TCRTT and PSAP measures reflect instrumental rather than
hostile, reactive responding (Cherek, et al., 2000)! And importantly, the results showed that aggessive
responding declined as the number of button presses needed increased, demonstrating the significance
of the differening demands. There will certainly be a justification behind this reasoning, but it should
be made more explicit as evidenced by these results. However, this study suffered from one major
limitation: only four subjects were tested, and therefore, this procedure needs to be replicated.
Contrary to what one might expect, till date, this has not been done.
The HSP also does not offer a true non-aggressive response. Although there is the possibility for
participants to choose the least intense option (a small amount of sauce), the same criticism as for
classic TCRTT-based paradigms is applicable. If participants wish to behave non-aggressively it is
very likely they will do so by choosing the weakest response. However, this does not mean that when
participants choose this response, their motive is a non-aggressive one.
In the CSTT participants are free to respond as they wish. If they are mainly motivated to compete,
they can choose to simply play the game and not annoy the opponent at all. They will still be
interacting with their opponent, even if they choose not to annoy them.
Moreover, when response options are limited, and administration of shocks is required, behaviour
might become influenced by (unintentional) cues from the experimenter suggesting what is expected
from the participant. If there is only one way to respond, subjects easily grasp what is expected from
them, regardless of whether they have the same interpretation of the situation. Alternatively, if
aggressive responses can be initiated at any time and at any frequency (as in the CSTT), the situation
becomes too complex for subjects to figure out/assess what behavioural pattern is expected. In the
HSP, perceived experimenter demands might play a significant role. Subjects are instructed to
administer “adequate sauce”. To researchers, increasing amounts of hot sauce are indicative of the
harm subjects intent to do to the other person. Certainly not all subjects will have the same
interpretation. Keeping in mind subjects are tested under the deception of participating in a foodtasting experiment, their reasoning could very well be based on what subjects think the experimenter
might expect of them. Helpful might be to inform subjects their performance will remain unknown to
the experimenter until the investigation has fully been conducted, reducing their need to satisfy the
demands of the experimenter.
25
3. 3. 3. Social interaction
The issue of proximity, or social interaction, has also largely been neglected. One reason is
presumably the ethical concerns involved with having particpants engage in actual physical harmful
contact. Therefore, a powerful advantage of the HSP is the fact that the issue of the interactive
component of aggressive acts and the need of proximity for administering physical harm is overcome
by characteristics of the aversive stimulus. It is a potential means of administering physical harm but
for this it is not necessary for those involved to be in close proximity of one another. In the CSTT,
players are still situated in different rooms, but because they can view eachother via webcams, this is
potentially less confounding.
3. 4 CONCLUDING REMARKS
In summary, Tedeschi and Quigley (1996; 2000) argue that it is possible that ultimate goals or
underlying motives interfere or mediate the particular responses observed in laboratory settings. The
degree to which recent studies of aggression have improved the measurement techniques to increase
construct validity have been evaluated.
The Taylor Competitive Reaction Time Task has undergone several meaningful adaptations. The task
has been coupled with measures of subjects’ motives in several studies, which seems promising.
Response alternatives have been increased by adding an intensity of zero. And occassionally
adjustments have been made with the purpose of decreasing the amount of alternative interpretations
of subjects’ responses, thereby increasing face validity. However, no significant changes have been
made to the more traditional PSAP. Indeed, serious claims against the value and usefulness of the
paradigm have been ignored.
The more recently developed paradigms are promising, one more than the other. While the HSP also
fails to consider individual differences in primary goals, offers no valid substitute for aggressive
behaviour, and may be sensitive to demand cues, the paradigm possesses two notable advantages. The
HSP holds superior ecological validity because in real-life, aggression is also sometimes expressed
through administration of noxious food. Additionally, due to the stimulus characteristics, there is no
need for participants to be in close proximity of one another, while the action remains one of physical
harm-doing. In the CSTT, all major limitations that traditional paradigms suffered from have been
adjusted. Subjects are inquired about their goals when responding aggressively, aggressive responding
is entirely optional and can be assessed under both provoking and unprovoking circumstances. Several
other adjustments have been made, attempting to account for all the minor and major limitations
inherent in traditional measurement techniques.
26
CHAPTER FOUR
RECENT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR CONSTRUCT VALIDITY
Evidently, validity cannot be assessed based purely on theoretical and methodological considerations.
Evidence for the paradigms in addition to that brought forward by Giancola & Chermack (1998) and
Tedeschi and Quigley (2000) is presented.
4. 1 CONVERGENT VALIDITY
CRTT responses have been found to correlate with state and trait hostility and aggression as assessed
with the Buss and Perry (1992) Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ; Anderson et al., 2004; 2008;
Arriaga et al., 2008). These studies used a loud noise as aversive stimulus and included a nonaggressive option (intensity or volume of zero). Giancola & Parrott (2008) demonstrate positive
correlations between CRTT responses and self report anger and aggression as assessed on the BPAQ,
trait anger, scores on the ABC anger inventory, and a measure of aggressive beliefs. However, they
used a CRTT version with shocks and intensities ranging from 1-10, thus lacking a non-aggressive
choice (Giancola & Parro,t 2008).
Evidence suggesting convergent validity of the PSAP comes from laboratory studies suggesting a
relationship between aggressive responding on the PSAP and the Buss Durkee Hostility Inventory
(BDHI; Buss & Durkee, 1957) self report measure of aggression (Gerra et al., 2001; 2004; 2007;
Golomb et al., 2007). However, as mentioned before, the validity of the BDHI itself as a measure of
aggression is questionable (cf. Parrott & Giancola, 2007). Another study that is referred to in support
of convergent validity is the Cherek et al. (2000) study. Here, subjects were assessed on three
measures of aggression: the BHVQ (Brown et al., 1979), the BDHI, and the Retrospective Overt
Aggression Scale (ROAS; Sorgi et al., 1991). Together, the questionnaires produce eight relevant total
and sub-scores to assess aggressive personality, creating 40 possible correlations, of which only six
were significant. Finally, two recent studies (Tcheremissine et al., 2005; Lieving et al., 2008) did not
find any significant correlations between aggressive responses on the PSAP and subjective measures
of aggression (BPAQ) and scores on the Lifetime History of Aggression Questionnaire (LHA;
Coccaro et al., 1997). Noteworthy, these studies presented with different response options; either with
or without the additional escape option.
27
4. 2 DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY
No evidence was found for discriminant validity of recent versions of the CRTT. It seems odd that no
attempts have been made to investigate the relationship with competition, considering it is important
that the aggressive resonses do not correlate with competition.
Also, to date, no study investigating discrimant validity of the PSAP has ever been conducted.
4. 3 INDIRECT EVIDENCE
Since many investigations have been conducted with respect to laboratory aggressive responding, and
most of these can be argued to contribute to indirect evidence in support of the validity of research
measures, only a few will be mentioned here. In a CRTT study using noise blasts as aversive
stimulation and offering a non-aggressive response option, provoked aggressive responding was
increased by brief exposure to a violent video game. However, the significance of the relation between
violent media and aggressive behaviour has recently been debated (cf. Ferguson, 2007). Giancola &
Parrott (2008) demonstrated CRTT aggression was higher in intoxicated individuals However, as
noted by T&Q, the mechanisms of the effects of alcohol itself are not yet fully understood yet,
therefore, this is not convincing evidence.
Recent indirect evidence concerning the PSAP comes from studies showing differences in PSAP
aggressive responding between violent and non-violent female parolees (Cherek et al., 2000; a similar
relationship was found for male parolees, see Cherek et al., 1997) in a paradigm providing three
response options (monetary reinforcement, aggressive responding and escape responding). On the
other hand, in a version with two response options (no escape option; Bailly & King, 2006), the
paradigm appeared unable to discriminate between high and low aggressive individuals (as measured
by the MCMI-II; Millon, 1987).
So far, only indirect evidence has been gathered in support of the Lieberman et al. (1999) Hot Sauce
Paradigm. As these researchers hypothesized, distinct domains of self-esteem predicted aggression
differently and this effect was mediated by provocation (Webster et al., 2006; Kirkpatrick et al., 2006).
Also, the amount of sauce allocated to the other person was affected by provocation (Fisher &
Greitemeyer, 2006; DeWall et al., 2007). Finally, increased testosterone predicted increased
aggressive responding (Klinesmith et al., 2006).
4. 4 RELATED IISSUES
A concern is that the TCRTT and PSAP are used to measure aggression differently in various studies.
For example, CRTT studies vary in choice of aversive stimuli: some studies use blasts of loud noise as
28
operationalisation of aggressive behaviour (e.g. Anderson & Murphy, 2003; Kramer et al., 2008;
Arriaga et al., 2008; Anderson et al., 2004; 2008), others use the more classic electric shocks (e.g.
Giancola et al., 2006; Reidy et al., 2007; Philips & Giancola, 2008; Giancola & Parott, 2008; Zeichner
et al., 2003), still others use finger pressure by means of compressed air as noxious stimulation (Lotze
et al., 2007) or point and money subtraction (Miller & Lynam, 2003). Response options also differ
across studies: in some experiments, there is a non-aggressive option available (e.g. Reidy et al., 2007;
Anderson & Murphy, 2003; Arriaga et al., 2008; Anderson et al., 2004; 2008; Zeichner et al., 2003),
but not in others (e.g. Giancola et al., 2006; Lotze et al., 2007; Kramer et al., 2008; Philips & Giancola,
2008; Giancola & Parott 2008).
The PSAP has been subject to several different variatons too. Although in most studies subjects are
offered three response options, this does not appear to be a consistent measure as some studies report
using only two options, monetary reinforcement (Button A) and aggressive responding, or, point
subtraction (Button B, or PS; e.g. Tcheremissine et al., 2005; Bailly & King, 2006). Monetary
reinforcements also vary across studies. For example, one point obtained either 30 cents
(Tcheremissine et al., 2005), 15 cents (Lieving et al., 2008), but usually 10 cents (Cherek et al., 2000;
Bailly & King, 2006; Nouvion et al., 2007; Carré et al., 2008). Furthermore, aggressive responding is
sometimes reinforced by initiation of a protection interval (e.g. Cherek et al., 2000; Tcheremissine et
al., 2005; Carré & McCormick, 2008) and sometimes not (Bailly & King, 2006; Lieving et al., 2008).
Also, the length of the protection interval is subject to variation (e.g. 62.5 seconds (Tcheremissine et
al., 2005); 125 seconds (e.g. Cherek et al., 2000; Lieving et al., 2008) and 250 seconds (e.g. Carré &
McCormick, 2008).
This indicates that there is no standardized way of interpreting these paradigms, which allows random
use of the measure and capitalization on chance. Data from different paradigms should therefore not
be combined as indicative of the same underlying concept.
Another isssue is that responses on the TCRTT and the PSAP have not yet been correlated. This
should be interesting for future attempts. Even if these would tap into slightly different dimensions of
aggression, there should still be a modest relation at least.
4. 5 CONCLUDING REMARKS
In the past years, only few attempts have been made to confirm the construct validity of the paradigms,
and the evidence is not convincing. If anything, support was found for convergent validity for CRTT
measures only, and no evidence of discriminant validity has been found for neither measure. Studies
examining convergent validity were only found for studies using the CRTT or PSAP. The studies
demonstrating evidence in favour of validity used different variations of the task. Evidence for the
29
PSAP was even more limited. The self-report measure most frequently referred to possesses
questionable validity itself, and two recent studies could not demonstrate positive relationships with
two measures of subjective aggression. Strikingly, discriminant validity has yet to be gathered for all
of the paradigms. This is a serious limitation, as no conclusions can be drawn with respect to its ability
to meaningfully distinguish between aggression and related, but not similar, concepts.
In summary, there is still ample evidence supporting construct validity of aggression paradigms.
Overall, in proving empirically established validity, the PSAP and HSP heavily rely on indirect
methodologies. Although some authors argue that the PSAP possesses validity (e. g. Giancola &
Chermack, 1998; Cherek et al., 2000; Tcheremissine et al., 2005), but the studies they cite to prove
validity are either outdated or use very indirect methodology to suggest that correspondence of results
in correlational and experimental studies offers an indication of validity for the PSAP. Researchers
already engage in validating even recent models and theories by using data obtained from these
paradimgs. But to aim most efforts at proving indirect connections at the expense of collecting
evidence to support convergent and discriminant validity seems premature, considering the construct
validity is still debated. The significance of indirect evidence is limited if convergent validity has not
been shown convincingly and discriminant validity has not been assessed at all. Moreover,
inconclusive results are often ignored during the subsequent discussion (for an example, see Giancola
& Parrot, 2008), failing to acknowledge the inconclusive nature of their findings, and hence, failing to
contribute to the gathering of knowledge on the mechanisms involved in aggressive behaviour. The
author does mean to necessarily imply that the paradigms lack validity itself, but there sure is a lack of
empirical evidence in favour of construct validity.
Notably, in assessing validity of measures (or significance of results in general, for that matter) it is
not sufficient to report the strength of correlations, nor their significance. To accurately asses the value
of a given effect, treatment or manipulation, effect sizes need to be calculated. Westen and Rosenthal
(2003) present a simple method providing effect size estimates that represent a quantitive measure of
construct validity. Moreover, according to the authors, the two measures of this method are easily
produced and compared across studies, constructs, and measures.
30
GENERAL CONCLUSION
The aim of this review was to evaluate and discuss the status of present day aggression research with
respect to validity of laboratory aggression paradigms. Instigation for this objective was given by a
discussion of the construct validity of aggression paradigms between Tedeschi and Quigley (1996;
2000) and Giancola and Chermack (1998). Having reviewed recent attempts at measuring aggression
in controlled settings, the general conclusion remains largely unaltered to conclusions initially drawn
by Tedeschi and Quigley (1996; 2000): aggression paradigms lack construct validity, or at least,
evidence thereof.
In the past ten years, theoretical adjustments have been made. The definition has been specified to
better capture the complexity of human behaviour. Concurrently, a more extensive mediational model
of human aggressive behaviour has been formulated.
Taken together, several notable attempts have been made to adjust the classic paradigms to better
adhere to the definition of the construct but few attempts have been made to empirically confirm the
construct validity of the paradigms in response to Tedeschi and Quigley’s (1996) criticisms. At present,
two of the paradigms on which the validity debate was centered, the Taylor Competitive Reaction
Time Task and the Point Subtraction Aggression Paradigm, are still the most widely used and most
well-accepted measures of laboratory aggression. Consideration of the major limitations of ignorance
to the perceptions, motivations, and interpretations of the subjects, and inability to offer a clear nonaggressive response alternative, have been unsatisfactory. Taken together, several adjustments have
been made to the TCRTT paradigm. Importantly, attention towards subjective interpretations of the
situation and/or motivations for responses has increased. Also, several studies have included response
alternatives that truly are clearly non-aggressive. These results are promising. Hopefully, attempts like
these will be increasingly incorporated by other researchers as well. But, these attempts are not
always adopted by others. What’s more, no consistent changes seem to have been made to the PSAP
design and its methodology. Yet, variations of the design appear to be abundant. It seems that in every
attempt at measuring aggressive responding on the PSAP, some variable or factor has been (slightly)
altered. How can a multifaceted construct such as aggression be reliably assessed when measurement
techniques are consistently adjusted?
More recent designs for assessing behavioural expressions of aggression have also been developed,
but these too have not (yet?) been adopted by contemporary researchers. The Hot Sauce paradigm has
several weaknesses but it possesses ecological validity, forming a more familiar task. Equally or
maybe more importantly, it enables examination of physical harm without the need for those involved
to be in actual bodily contact or close proximity. A paradigm that incorporated all major and minor
criticisms is the Competitive Spatial Tracking Task. However, this paradigm is still in development
31
but will certainly prove capable of providing a meaningful contribution to understanding human
aggression.
Convincing empirical evidence in favour of construct validity remains scarce, ambiguous, or absent.
Researchers suggesting otherwise largely rely on indirect methodologies. In addition, there is much
variation in the way in which the paradigms are applied. Instead of clarifying the concept of
aggression, research conducted in this way may simply add to the confusion. One of the basic
principles of research in human subjects is that conditions must be kept constant to reduce error in
measurement due to subject variables. Therefore, construct validity yet remains to be demonstrated.
To better adhere to the frequently used definitions, these paradigms still need to be enriched so that we
can examine the motives and tactics used by people who use threats and punishments as means to
achieve interpersonal objectives. Fortunately, the first attempts to reach this goal have been made.
Preferably, a good laboratory aggression paradigm would consider subject’s motives and intentions,
and would potentially allow aggression to emerge spontaneously as well as following provocation.
Ideally, the aggressive behaviour will be one of a variety of offered response alternatives, including
not only simply non-aggressive behaviours, but prosocial and communicative responses as well as.
Obviously, a perfect measure of human behaviour, let alone a construct describing human behaviour,
is not possible. However, we should continue to strive idealism and critically evaluate attempts to
measure controlled aggressive behaviour to ensure progression in aggression research, otherwise,
scientific understanding of risk factors for aggression and, ultimately, theory development will suffer.
\
32
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. A., Deuser, W. E., & DeNeve, K. (1995). Hot temperatures, hostile affect, hostile
cognition, and arousal: Tests of a general model of affective aggression. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, pp. 434–448.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review in
Psychology, 53, pp. 27–51.
Anderson, C. A., & Murphy, C. R. (2003). Violent video games and aggressive behavior in young
women. Aggressive Behavior, 29, pp. 423-429.
Anderson , C. A., Carnagey, N. L., Flanagan, M., Benjamin, A. J., Eubanks, J., & Valentine, J. C.
(2004). Violent video games: Specific effects ofviolent content on aggressive thoughts and
behavior. Advanced Experimental Social Psychology, 36, pp. 199–249.
Anderson, C. A., Buckley, K. E. & Carnagey, N. L. (2008). Creating Your Own Hostile Environment:
A Laboratory Examination of Trait Aggressiveness and the Violence Escalation Cycle.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin; 34; 462
Arms, R. L., Russell, G. W., Dwyer, R. S.,& Josuttes, D. ( 1996). Female targets of male aggression in
the bungled procedure paradigm. Unpublished manuscript. In: Russell et al., 1996.
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (1997). Social psychology.Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Arriaga, P., Esteves, F., Carneiro, P., Monteiro, M. B.(2008). Are the effects of unreal
violent video games pronounced when playing with a virtual reality system? Agressive
Behaviour, 34(5), pp. 521-538.
Bailly, M. D., & King, A. R. (2006). Trait modulation of alcohol-induced laboratory
aggression. Psychiatry Research, 142(2-3), pp. 129-138.
Baron, R. A., Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human Aggression. New York: Plenum. 2nd ed.
Barratt, E. S., & Slaughter, L. (1998). Defining, measuring, and predicting impulsive
aggression: a heuristic model. Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 16(3), pp. 285-302.
Berkowitz, L. (1993).Pain and aggression: some findings and implications. Motivation
and Emotion, 17, pp. 277–293.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. Philidelphia,
PA: Temple University Press.
Bernstein, S., Richardson, D., Hammock, G. (1987). Convergent and discriminant
validity of the Taylor and Buss measures of physical aggression.Aggressive Behaviour, 13, pp.
15 –24.
Brown, G. L., Goodwin, F. K., Ballenger, J. C., Goyer, P. F., & Major, L. F. (1979). Aggression in
33
humans correlates with cerebrospinal fluid amine metabolites. Psychiatry Research, 1, pp.
131–139.
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Is it time to pull the plug on hostile versus
instrumental aggression? Psychological Review, 108(1), pp. 273-279.
Buss, A, & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of
Conslting and Clinical Psychology, 21, pp. 343–349.
Buss, A. H. (1961).The Psychology of Aggression, New York,NY: Wiley.
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63, pp. 452-459.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), pp. 81-105.
Carré, J. M. & McCormick, C. M. (2008). Aggressive behavior and change in salivary
testosterone concentrations predict willingness to engage in a competitive task.
Hormones and Behaviour, 54(3), pp. 403-409.
Cherek, D. R., Spiga, R., Steinberg, J. L., & Kelly, T. H. (1990). Human aggessive responses
maintained by avoidance or escape from point loss. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behaviour, 53(2), pp.293-303.
Cherek, D. R., Spiga, R., & Egli, M. (1992). Effects of response requirement and alcohol
on human aggressive responding. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, 58(3), pp.
577-587.
Cherek, D. R., Roache, J. D., Egli, M., Davis, C., Spiga, R., & Cowan, K. (1993). Acute
effects of marijuana smoking on aggressive, escape and point-maintained responding of male
drug users. Psychopharmacology, 111(2), pp. 163-168.
Cherek, D. R., Moeller, F. G., Schnapp, W., & Dougherty, D. M. (1997). Studies of violent and
nonviolent male parolees: I. Laboratory and psychometric measures of aggression. Biological
Psychiatry, 41, pp. 514–522.
Cherek, D. R., Lane, S. D., Dougherty, D. M., Moeller, F. G., & White, S. (2000). Laboratory and
questionnaire measures of aggression among female parolees with violent or nonviolent
histories. Aggressive Behaviour, 26, pp. 291–307.
Cornell, D. G., Warren, J., Hawk, G., Stafford, E., Oram, G., & Pine, D. (1996).
Psychopathy in instrumental and reactive violent offenders. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 64(4), pp. 783-790.
DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Stillman, T. F., Gailliot, M. T. (2007).Violence
restrained: effects of self-regulation and its depletion on aggression. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 43, pp. 62 –76.
Ferguson, C. J. (2007). Evidence for publication bias in video game violence effects
literature: A meta-analytic review. (2007). Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, pp. 470-482.
34
Fischer, P., & Greitemeyer, T. (2006). Music and aggression: the impact of sexual-aggressive song
lyrics on aggression-related thoughts, emotions, and behavior toward the same and the
opposite sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(9), pp. 1165-1176.
Gerra, G., Zaimovic, A., Raggi, M., Giusti, F., Delsignore, R., Bertacca, S., & Brambilla, F. (2001).
Aggressive responding of male heroin addicts under methadone treatment: psychometric and
neuroendocrine correlates. Drug and Alcohol Dependance, 65, pp. 85–95.
Gerra, G., Zaimovic, A., Moi, G., Bussandri, M., Bubici, C., Mossini, M., Raggi, M., & Brambilla, F.
(2004). Aggressive responding in abstinent heroin addicts: neuroendocrine and
personality correlates. Progress in Neuropsychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 28,
pp. 129–139.
Gerra, G., Zaimovic, A., Raggi, M., Moi, G., Branchi, B., Moroni, M., & Brambilla, F. (2007).
Experimentally
induced
aggressiveness
in
heroin-dependent
patients
treated
with
buprenorphine: comparison of patients receiving methadone and healthy subjects. Psychiatry
Research, 149, pp. 201–213.
Giancola, P. R., & Chermack, S. T. (1998). Construct validity of laboratory aggression paradigms: a
response to Tedeschi and Quigley (1996). Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, pp. 237–253.
Giancola, P. R., Godlaski, A. J. & Parrott, D. J. (2006).Perceptions of one's attacker's
intentions following an aggressive interaction involving alcohol. Journal of General
Psychology, 133(4), pp. 389-400.
Giancola, P. R. & Parrott, D. J. (2008). Further evidence for the validity of the Taylor
Aggression Paradigm. Aggressive Behaviour, 34(2), pp. 214-229.
Golomb, B. A., Cortez-Perez, M., Jaworski, B. A., Mednick, S., & Dimsdale, J. (2007).
Point subtraction aggression paradigm: validity of a brief schedule of use. Violence Victims,
22(1), pp. 95-103.
Joireman, J., Anderson, J., & Strathman, A. (2003). The aggression paradox:
understanding links among aggression, sensation seeking, and the consideration of future
consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), pp. 1287-302.
Kaplan, H. I., & Sadock, E. J. (2003). Synopsis of Psychiatry, 9th Ed..
Kirkpatrick, L. A., Waugh, C. E., Valencia, A., & Webster, G. D. (2002). The functional
domain-specifity of self-esteem and the differential prediction of aggression. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82, pp. 756 –767.
Klinesmith, J., Kasser, T., & McAndrew, F. T. (2006). Guns, testosterone, and aggression: an
experimental test of a mediational hypothesis. Psychological Science, 17(7), pp. 568-571.
Kramer, U. M., Jansma, H., Tempelmann, C., & Munte, T. F. (2007). Tit-for-tat: the
neural basis of reactive aggression. NeuroImage,38(1), pp. 203-211.
Lieving, L. M., Cherek, D. R., Lane, S. D., Tcheremissine, O. V., & Nouvion, S. O.
35
(2008). Effects of acute tiagabine administration on aggressive responses of adult male
parolees. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 22(2), pp. 144-152.
Lieberman, J. D., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). A hot new way
to measure aggression: Hot sauce allocation. Aggressive Behaviour, 25, pp. 331 –348.
Lotze, M., Veit, R., Anders, S., & Birbaumer, N. (2006). Evidence for a different role of
the ventral and dorsal medial prefrontal cortex for social reactive aggression: An
interactive fMRI study. NeuroImage,34(1), pp. 470-478.
McEllistrem, J. E. (2004). Affective and predatory violence: A bimodal classification
system of human aggression and violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, pp. 1–30.
McGregor, H. A., Lieberman, J. D., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., Simon, L., &
Pyszczynski, T. (1998). Terrormanagement and aggression: Evidence that mortality salience
motivates aggression against world-view-threatening others. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, pp. 590 –605.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal Social
Psychology, 67. pp.376.
Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2003). Psychopathy and the Five-factor model of
personality: a replication and extension. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81(2),
pp. 168-178.
Millon, T. (1987). Manual for the MCMI-II. National Computer Systems, Minneapolis.
Nouvion, S. O., Cherek, D. R., Lane, S. D., Tcheremissine, O. V., & Lieving, L. M.
(2007). Human proactive aggression: association with personality disorders and psychopathy.
Aggressive Behaviour, 33(6), pp. 552-562.
Parrott, D. J., Giancola, P. R. (2007). Addressing ‘‘The criterion problem ’’ in the
assessment of aggressive behavior:Development of a new taxonomic system. Aggression and
Violent Behaviour, 12, pp. 280 –299.
Phillips, J. P., & Giancola, P. R. (2008). Experimentally induced anxiety attenuates
alcohol-related aggression in men. Experimental Clinical Psychopharmacology, 16(1), pp. 4356.
Polman, J. D. M. (2008). Hot-headed or cold-blooded? Towards a clear distinction between reactive
and proactive aggression in youth. Dissertation, Utrecht University.
Reichman, M. (1991). Rating aggression in the clinical setting: a retrospective adaptation of the overt
aggression scale. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 3, pp. S52–S56.
Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., & Martinez, M. A. (2008). Effects of psychopathy traits on unprovoked
aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 34(3), pp. 319-328.
Ritter, D. & Eslea, M. (2005). Hot sauce, toy guns, and graffiti: A critical
account of current laboratory aggression paradigms. Aggressive Behavior, 31, pp. 407 –419.
Russell, G. W., Arms, R. L., Loof, S. D., & Dwyer, R. S. (1996). Men ’s aggression
36
toward women in a bungled procedure paradigm. Journal of Social Behaviour and
Personality, 11, pp. 729 –738.
Russell, G. W., Arms, R. L., Dwyer, R. S., & Josuttes, D. (2002).Females as targets of male
aggression in the bungled procedure paradigm. University of Lethbridge.
Savage, J. (in press). The competitive spatial tracking task. Cardiff University, Cardiff.
Sorgi, P., Ratey, J. J., Knoedler, D.W., Markert, R. J., Reichman, M. (1991). Rating aggression in the
clinical setting: A retrospective adaptation of the Overt Aggression Scale: preliminary results.
Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 3(2), pp. S52-S56.
Taylor, S. P. (1967). Aggressive behavior and physiological arousal as a function of provocation and
the tendency to inhibit aggression. Journal of Personality, 35, pp. 297–310.
Taylor, S. P., & Epstein, S. (1967). Aggression as a function of the interaction of the sex of the
aggressor and the sex of the victim. Journal of Personality, 35, pp. 474–486.
Tcheremissine, O. V., Lane, S. D., Lieving, L. M., Rhoades, H. M., Nouvion, S., &
Cherek, D. R. (2005). Individual differences in aggressive responding to intravenous
flumazenil administration in adult male parolees. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 19(6), pp.
640-646.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Quigley, B. M. (1996). Limitations of laboratory paradigms for studying aggression.
Aggressive and Violent Behavior, 1, pp. 163–177.
Tedeschi, J.T., & Quigley, B.M. (2000). A further comment on the construct validity of
laboratory aggression paradigms: a response to Giancola and Chermack. Aggression and
Violent Behaviour, 5(2), pp. 127– 136.
Waschbusch, D. A., Pelham, W. E. Jr., Jennings, J. R., Greiner, A. R., Tarter, R. E., & Moss, H. B.
(2002). Reactive aggression in boys with disruptive behaviour disorders: behaviour,
physiology, and affect. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(6), pp. 641-656.
Westen, D., & Rosenthal, R. Quantifying construct validity: two simple measures. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), pp. 608-618.
37
ATTACHMENT 1
Anderson & Murphy (2003) six-item motivation questionnaire
The questionnaire consists of six items on which participants were to specify the extent to which this
motive describesd their your motive for deciding at what intensity to set the noise levels.’
The items used a 5-point scale from 0 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree).
The six items were
(1) I wanted to impair my opponent’s performance in order to win more;
(2) I wanted to control my opponent’s level of responses;
(3) I wanted to make my opponent mad;
(4) I wanted to hurt my opponent;
(5) I wanted to pay back my opponent for the noise levels he/she set;
(6) I wanted to blast him/her harder than he/she blasted me.
The first two items represent instrumental reasons for aggressing, and were combined to form a scale
labeled ‘‘Instrumental Aggressive Motivation.’’
The latter four items represent a clearly revengeful type of aggressive motive, were combined to form
a scale labeled ‘‘Revenge Motivation.’’
From: Anderson, C. A., & Murphy, C. R. (2003). Violent video games and aggressive behavior in
young women. Aggressive Behavior, 29, pp. 423-429.
38