Lifetime Acts of Violence Assessment (LAVA) predictors of laboratory aggression

Abstract

While self-report data warrants interpretive caution in applied settings, these indices serve an important role in exploratory research. The Lifetime Assessment of Violent Acts (LAVA) inventory is a brief, reliable, face-valid questionnaire for estimating the frequency, triggers, and consequences (including injuries to others) of prior acts of aggression. The LAVA also identifies the situational contexts in which prior violence was triggered and provides a basis for risk classifications based on past reactive, intimate partner, alcohol-related, and/or weapon-related violence. Scores on the LAVA indices have been linked to a range of developmental and maladjustment indicators. Associations were found between lab-provoked (Taylor Aggression Paradigm) responding and both dimensional and risk classification scores in this sample (N = 92) of college men. Participants "competed" with a fictional opponent using electric shock as a retaliatory measure for perceived provocation. The total LAVA dimensional score predicted mean shock intensity (d = .87), baseline responding (d = 0.90), and past sexual aggression (d = 1.01). Shock intensities in response to high provocation were predicted (M d = 0.57) by all but one LAVA index. Participants who reported inflicting one or more injuries on another showed more intense escalations of aggression (d = 0.46) in response to provocation than normative counterparts.Prior injuries to another (RR = 2.71), reactive acts of aggression (RR = 3.73), or intimate-partner violence (RR = 4.19) elevated the risk of one or more prior acts of self-reported sexual aggression. The limitations and potential value of self-report data were discussed in regard to aggression research.

Neural mechanisms of intimate partner aggression

“…Instead, this measure captured a less severe, moderate level of aggression. Yet, such scores obtained from laboratory aggression paradigms do exhibit external validity in the form of positive correlations with measures of real-world violence (King & Russell, 2019). Therefore, this MRI aggression task was intended to capture moderate IPA within the ethical constraints of the laboratory, while still shedding light on neural mechanisms that might play a role in more severe acts of IPA.…”

Cognitive and Affective Mediators of Alcohol-Facilitated Intimate-Partner Aggression

“…This limitation reflects more general concerns raised about laboratory measures of aggression, such as the TAP, in which the balance of affective and cognitive factors may be unique (Ferguson & Rueda, 2009; Tedeschi & Quigley, 1996). That stated, there is extensive documentation that addresses concerns of ecological validity in laboratory-based research (e.g., Berkowitz & Donnerstein, 1982; Mook, 1983) and the internal and external validity of the TAP specifically (e.g., Chester & Lasko, 2019; Giancola & Parrott, 2008; King & Russell, 2019; Miller, Wilson, Hyatt, & Zeichner, 2015). Despite these criticisms, our results demonstrate that even under controlled circumstances, our predictions were still supported.…”

Low competitive status elicits aggression in healthy young men: behavioural and neural evidence

“…Average punishment selections show high internal consistency, load onto a single factor ( Chester and Lasko, 2019 ) and predict real-life aggression ( King and Russell, 2019 ), suggesting that they are a valid measure of aggression and that they adequately summarize participant’s behaviour in the task. We followed the pre-registered analysis plan ( https://osf.io/aq5ge6 ) and compared mean aggression against the high- vs low-status opponent with a paired t -test in R (version 3.6.1) running on R Studio (version 1.1.423).…”