مقیاس خصومت پرسشنامه پرخاشگری، خشم در پاسخ به بدرفتاری را پیش بینی می کند
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|33249||1999||11 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||4820 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Behaviour Research and Therapy, Volume 37, Issue 1, January 1999, Pages 87–97
We tested the hypotheses that the hostility and anger scales of the Buss and Perry (1992) [Buss, A. H. & Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459.] Aggression Questionnaire would predict anger in college students in response to mistreatment. We found low and high hostility groups did not differ in anger at baseline or after completing a task without provocation, but the high hostility group reported greater anger than the low group after the onset of provocation, which required all students to redo completed tasks because some students (confederates) were observed cheating. Hostility also influenced anxiety and depression, but only anger was greater as a result of the provocation in the high than in the low hostility group. The anger scale did not predict anger in response to provocation, but anger was higher in the high than the low anger group before the provocation. These findings support the construct validity of the Aggression Questionnaire hostility scale as a measure of suspicion, resentment and sensitivity to mistreatment.
The Aggression Questionnaire (AQ; Buss and Perry, 1992) is a revised version of the Buss and Durkee (1957) Hostility Inventory (BDHI), one of the most widely used instruments for the assessment of hostility. It was developed to improve upon the psychometric properties of the BDHI, which ostensibly measures seven dimensions of hostility. However, the seven scales, labeled assault, indirect aggression, verbal aggression, irritability, negativism, resentment, and suspicion were developed rationally without the benefit of factor analysis. Subsequent factor analyses revealed similar, but not identical, two-factor structures, named either aggressiveness and hostility (Buss and Durkee, 1957), overt and covert hostility (Bendig, 1962) or expressive and neurotic hostility (Siegman et al., 1987). A meta-analysis of factor analyses (Bushman et al., 1991) confirmed this two-factor structure. Items for the Aggression Questionnaire were selected to assess six dimensions of hostility: physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, indirect aggression, resentment and suspicion. A series of factor analyses in three groups of participants found four factors, which were labeled physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger and hostility (Buss and Perry, 1992). Buss and Perry (1992), p. 457) concluded that physical and verbal aggression `involve hurting or harming others' and represent the instrumental component of aggression; anger includes `physiological arousal and preparation for aggression' and represents the affective component and hostility consists of `feelings of ill will and injustice' and represents the cognitive component of aggression. They reported adequate internal consistency and test–retest reliability for the four scales and suggested the inventory met current psychometric standards. The four-factor structure was confirmed for Canadian (Harris, 1995) and Dutch (Meesters et al., 1996) university students, but a two-factor structure combining physical aggression with anger and verbal aggression with hostility provided a better fit for adult criminal offenders (Williams et al., 1996). Harris and Knight-Bohnhoff (1996) found physical aggression and anger and less consistently hostility, correlated with self-reported aggressive behavior in college students and military and civilian employees of a military base. Russell and Arms (1995) found physical aggression and anger predicted enjoyment of fights and perceived likelihood of escalating a crowd disturbance among men at an ice hockey game. These results provided some support that Aggression Questionnaire scales, especially physical aggression and anger, measure stable dimensions of personality that predict aggressive behavior. Based on correlations between AQ scales, Buss and Perry (1992) suggested anger was the affective component that bridges the cognitive component of hostility and the instrumental components of verbal and physical aggression. They explained that correlations between anger and aggression made sense because anger often precedes aggression and aggression is more likely to occur when people are angry. In fact, many researchers accept the view that hostile aggression is motivated by anger (Spielberger et al., 1995). Others pointed out that although anger may motivate aggression, it often leads to responses other than aggression (Averill, 1983), which may depend on such cognitive factors as attributions and expectations (Berkowitz, 1990). Buss and Perry (1992), p. 457) also suggested that ``after anger has cooled down'', hostility might be ``a cognitive residual of ill will, resentment and perhaps suspicion of others' motives''. Based on an item content analysis of the hostility scale, we agree that AQ hostility consists of suspicion, resentment and sensitivity to mistreatment. However, previous work with the AQ's predecessor, the Buss–Durkee Hostility Inventory leads us to suggest an alternative temporal relationship between hostility and anger is possible. Felsten (1996) evaluated the two factors of the BDHI in the context of a five-factor model of personality and found the neurotic hostility factor, which consists of suspicion and resentment, was associated with traits that predicted distrust of others, vulnerability to stress, poor coping and frequent negative affect, including anger, which was unlikely to be expressed. Because the AQ hostility scale includes many of the same items and appears to measure the same constructs as the BDHI neurotic hostility scale, we suggest hostility should lead to anger in response to appropriate provocation. We tested this hypothesis in the present study. We also expected trait anger to predict state anger and tested that hypothesis as well. In an effort to engage hostility, we designed a provocation expected to tap into its component constructs of suspicion, resentment and sensitivity to mistreatment. It included several features previously shown to elicit anger, including frustration of goal attainment (Berkowitz, 1989; Torestad, 1990), unfair treatment by others (Duncan and Hobson, 1977) and dishonesty on the part of others (Harris, 1993). Briefly, students were required to redo a series of completed tasks or forfeit credit because other students (confederates) were observed cheating. We used a repeated measures design, in which all students provided baseline affect ratings, ratings after a task without provocation and ratings at two points during the provocation. We also tested relationships between the AQ verbal and physical aggression scales and anger arousal, but made no predictions because we were uncertain whether the provocation would engage aspects of personality that comprise those constructs. Because negative affects tend to be intercorrelated, we also tested influences of AQ scales and provocation on anxiety and depression.