The purpose of this article was to determine the socialisation antecedents of socio-moral approval of aggression (SMAA). In Study 1, we assessed factorial structure and reliability of the SMAA with a sample of 355 students who reported on the extent to which they approved of six forms of aggressive behaviour and six justifications of aggression. Two-factor solutions were obtained with regard to forms and justifications of aggressive acts. Thus, approval of extreme and minor aggression was distinguished as well as legitimate and illegitimate justifications of aggression. In Study 2, we tested the path models of the socialisation antecedents that contributed to the high approval of minor and extreme aggressive acts as well as legitimate and illegitimate justifications of aggression. Data were collected from 173 undergraduate students. Path analyses showed that high levels of approval of extremely aggressive acts and of illegitimate justifications of aggression were preceded by a sequence of negative life events, beginning with frequent misbehaviour in childhood, corporal punishment used by parents and ending with delinquency in adolescence. The approval of minor aggression had little relation to socialisation factors apart from a detrimental effect of psychological aggression while approval of legitimate justifications of aggression had no socialisation antecedents.
Three experiments examined the effect of aggression-evoking cues on aggressive cognitions related to physical, verbal, and relational aggression and internal states (anger and hostility). In Experiment 1 (n = 40), the priming effect of masculinity threat on four categories of aggressive cognitions was investigated among males; Experiment 2 (n = 46) tested whether exposure to images stimulating negative and sexual arousal induced higher accessibility of aggressive constructs in men; in Experiment 3 (n = 95), female participants completed a self-report questionnaire measuring aggressive behavior, administered so as to activate their aggressive cognitions. All three studies revealed that, when the concept "aggression" is activated, the accessibility of physically aggressive thoughts increases regardless of the participant's sex or the sorts of stimuli used to evoke aggressive cognitions. Thoughts related to verbal and relational aggression, anger, and hostility were not activated. The findings are discussed in terms of the cognitive-neoassociationistic model of aggression in which physical aggression may play the role of the core of an aggression cognition network that is easily activated without spreading that effect on associated constructs.
Previous research has suggested that sensitivity to provocation and frustration differently predict aggressive behaviour. In the study reported in this paper, two potential mediators of the relationships among both sensitivities and self-reported aggression were examined, namely instrumental and expressive beliefs about aggression. A sample of 318 participants (52% men) took part in the study. Structural Equation Modeling demonstrated that sensitivity to provocation was related to both types of beliefs about aggression, whereas sensitivity to frustration was associated with expressive beliefs. However, only instrumental beliefs mediated the relationship between sensitivity to provocation and both physical and verbal aggression. Analysed variables predicted 46% of the variance in physical aggression and 11% of the variance in verbal aggression. Additionally, men reported higher physical aggression and endorsed more instrumental beliefs than women. Implications for understanding emotional and cognitive mechanisms involved in regulation of aggression are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.