construct validity of a laboratory aggression paradigm

71 Pages·2017·0.76 MB·English

UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff KKeennttuucckkyy
UUKKnnoowwlleeddggee
University of Kentucky Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School
2011
CCOONNSSTTRRUUCCTT VVAALLIIDDIITTYY OOFF AA LLAABBOORRAATTOORRYY AAGGGGRREESSSSIIOONN
PPAARRAADDIIGGMM:: AA MMUULLTTIITTRRAAIITT--MMUULLTTIIMMEETTHHOODD AAPPPPRROOAACCHH
Joshua Parker Phillips
University of Kentucky, [email protected]
RRiigghhtt cclliicckk ttoo ooppeenn aa ffeeeeddbbaacckk ffoorrmm iinn aa nneeww ttaabb ttoo lleett uuss kknnooww hhooww tthhiiss ddooccuummeenntt bbeenneefifittss yyoouu..
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Phillips, Joshua Parker, "CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF A LABORATORY AGGRESSION PARADIGM: A
MULTITRAIT-MULTIMETHOD APPROACH" (2011). University of Kentucky Doctoral Dissertations. 131.
https://uknowledge.uky.edu/gradschool_diss/131
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at UKnowledge. It has been
accepted for inclusion in University of Kentucky Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of
UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected].
ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION

Joshua Parker Phillips

The Graduate School

University of Kentucky

2011
CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF A LABORATORY AGGRESSION PARADIGM:
A MULTITRAIT-MULTIMETHOD APPROACH

ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the
College of Arts and Sciences
at the University of Kentucky

By
Joshua Parker Phillips

Lexington, Kentucky

Director: Dr. Peter R. Giancola, Professor of Psychology

Lexington, Kentucky

2011

Copyright © Joshua P. Phillips 2011
ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION

CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF A LABORATORY AGGRESSION PARADIGM:
A MULTITRAIT-MULTIMETHOD APPROACH

There continues to be doubt regarding the validity of laboratory aggression paradigms.
This paper provides an investigation of the construct validity of one prominent aggression task,
the Taylor Aggression Paradigm (TAP), within a Multitrait Multimethod Matrix (MTMM)
methodology. Participants consisted of 151 male undergraduate psychology students with a
median age of 19 years old (M=19.45, SD = 2.03). Participants completed self-report and
behavioral measures of aggresion, impulsivity, and pro-social behavior which were analyized
using a Correlated Trait – Correlated Method Confirmatory Factor Analysis model. Results
supported the construct validity of the MTMM model and the TAP. This study provides one of
the only a priori tests of construct validity for the TAP and provides a basis for aditional
validation studies using this methodology.
KEYWORDS: Aggression, Construct Validity, Multitrait Multimethod
Matrix, Factor Analysis, Taylor Aggression Paradigm

Joshua Parker Phillips
Student's Signature

January 31, 2011
Date
CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF A LABORATORY AGGRESSION PARADIGM:
A MULTITRAIT-MULTIMETHOD APPROACH

By

Joshua Parker Phillips

Peter R. Giancola, Ph.D.
Director of Dissertation

David T. R. Berry, Ph.D.
Director of Graduate Studies

January 31, 2011
RULES FOR THE USE OF DISSERTATIONS

Unpublished dissertations submitted for the Doctor's degree and deposited in the University of
Kentucky Library are as a rule open for inspection, but are to be used only with due regard to
the rights of the authors. Bibliographical references may be noted , but quotations or summaries
of parts may be published only with the permission of the author, and with the usual scholarly
acknowledgements.

Extensive copying or publication of the dissertation in whole or in part also requires the consent
of the Dean of the Graduate School of the University of Kentucky.

A library that borrows this dissertation for use by its patrons is expected to secure the signature
of each user.

Name Date

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
DISSERTATION

Joshua Parker Phillips

The Graduate School

University of Kentucky

2011
CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF A LABORATORY AGGRESSION PARADIGM:
A MULTITRAIT-MULTIMETHOD APPROACH

DISSERTATION

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the
College of Arts and Sciences
at the University of Kentucky

By
Joshua Parker Phillips

Lexington, Kentucky

Director: Dr. Peter R. Giancola, Professor of Psychology

Lexington, Kentucky

2011

Copyright © Joshua P. Phillips 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Chapter One: Introduction
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Defining Aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Laboratory Assessment of Aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Construct Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Construct Validity Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Face Validity Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Convergent Validity Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Discriminant Validity Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Known-Group Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Gender Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Neuropsychological Functioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Neurochemical Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Testosterone Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Effects of Psychoactive Drugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Effects of Provocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Summary of Validity Evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Multitrait Multimethod Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Chapter Two: Methodology
Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Self-Report Aggression Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Behavioral Aggression Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Self-Report Prosocial Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Behavioral Prosocial Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Self-Report Impulsivity Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Behavioral Impulsivity Task. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Chapter Three: Results
Correlation Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Structural Equation Modeling Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Chapter Four: Discussion
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Vita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

iii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. Correlations Between Observed Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
Table 3.2. Model Fit Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

iv