An aggression machine I. The intensity of aggressive defence aroused by aggressive offence

Pitkänen, Lea

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.1973.tb00091.x

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first findings obtained using the PAM paradigm [Pitkänen, 1973a] confirmed the situational specificity of reactive aggression. First of all, the intensity of aggression in response to a provoking assault largely depended on the intensity of the provocation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…Situation and personality-related determinants of reactive aggression were investigated using the PAM paradigm [Pitkänen, 1969[Pitkänen, , 1973a. The PAM allows systematic variation of the in-tensity of the attack and response levels in impulsive aggression and controlled aggression conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the most significant results are those collected within a series of interrelated studies all centered around a key experiment: the Pitkänen Aggression Machine (PAM). The PAM was especially designed to verify the outcome of self-reported data, which indicated that situational factors are critically associated with behavioral control in reactive, or defensive, aggression [Pitkänen, 1969[Pitkänen, , 1973a. It employs a series of pictures, which vary in offensive aggressive content.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, the concurrent and predictive validity of the intensity of defensive aggression in the PAM was highly dependent on situational factors, with the highest validity for reactive aggression obtained in conditions where the attacker was a same-sex peer. The original PAM data set was collected using a mechanical device, and data were stored on analogue tapes [Pitkänen, 1973a]. Further data processing required time-consuming manual coding prior to statistical analyses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, the intensity of reactive aggression will be equal to the intensity of the provocation in the absence of inhibitory situational cues in the impulsive aggression condition [Pitkänen, 1973a;Pitkänen-Pulkkinen, 1980]. Second, the intensity of the instigated reactions would be highest when the provocateur is a same-sized peer of the same sex; signaling weak inhibitory cues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

An aggression machine v. determinants in reactive aggression revisited

Juujärvi

Kooistra

Kaartinen

et al. 2001

Aggressive Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relations between reactive aggression, situational cues, and emotion regulation were examined by means of the Pulkkinen Aggression Machine (PAM) task. In the PAM, provocation and response were systematically varied under two conditions: the impulsive aggression condition and the controlled aggression condition. In the impulsive condition, no information about the attacker was provided, while in the controlled condition the attackers were specified in terms of sex, age, and physical strength. The task was administered to 109 children aged 8 to 13 years. Boys (n = 61) and girls (n = 48), as well as subgroups of Adjusted (n = 67) and Maladjusted (n = 26) children were compared. The results confirmed earlier findings showing that there is a strong relationship between attack and response intensity. However, this relationship was consistently modified by the effects of situation and personality-related variables. This meant that, while for the impulsive condition response intensity was closely tied to stimulus intensity, in the controlled condition this effect was modulated by the characteristics of the opponent: the more equal the opponent the stronger the retaliations displayed. The Maladjusted children reacted more intensively in the impulsive condition and to minor provocation in the controlled condition than the Adjusted children. This suggests that the intensity of the elicited aggression in the Maladjusted group was particularly dependent on contextual rather than internal control. Aggr. Behav. 27:430-445, 2001.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

An aggression machine v. determinants in reactive aggression revisited

Juujärvi

Kooistra

Kaartinen

et al. 2001

Aggressive Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Concurrent and predictive validity of self-reported aggressiveness

Pulkkinen

1981

Aggr. Behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The subjects (60 boys) were drawn from the sample of a longitudinal study of social development and represented extremely aggressive, anxious, constructive, and submissive behaviour at the age of 8. They were presented with three question series concerning (1) their responses to aggressive attacks; (2) reactions in frustration situations presented in short stories; and (3) their aggressive initiatives. In each series the type of aggressive behaviour, attacker, victim, and other situational factors were systematically varied. In series 2 the type of response, open‐ended or forced‐choice, was also varied. The results showed that the most valid way of studying boys' self‐observations on their aggressive behaviour was to ask if they attack somebody without a specific reason (series 3). This correlated with contemporaneous overt aggression at the age of 8 and predicted aggressiveness and various characteristics of antisocial aggressive development at the ages of 14 and 19. Self‐observations on one's physical aggression were more valid for ratings of overt aggressiveness than on verbal aggression. The open‐ended or forced‐choice type of response did not affect the validity of aggressive responses. Of the categories of nonaggression, ‘conciliatory responses’ had the highest concurrent and predictive validity for constructiveness and other indicators of strong self‐control.

show abstract