The competitive reaction time task: The development and scientific utility of a flexible laboratory aggression paradigm

Abstract

Laboratory measures play an important role in the study of aggression because they allow researchers to make causal inferences. However, these measures have also been criticized. In particular, the competitive reaction time task (CRTT) has been criticized for allowing aggression to be operationalized in multiple ways, leaving it susceptible to “p‐hacking.” This article describes the development of the CRTT and the ways in which its paradigm flexibility and analytic flexibility allows it to test a wide range of hypotheses and research questions. This flexibility gives the CRTT significant scientific utility, but as with any research paradigm, comes with the obligation that it has to be used with integrity. Although safeguards exist and there is little evidence of misuse, study preregistration can increase confidence in CRTT findings. The importance of findings such as those of Hyatt et al. (in press), which provide further evidence for the validity of the CRTT, are also noted.

Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation for the Modulation of Aggressive Behavior—A Systematic Review of Randomized Sham-Controlled Studies

“…In each condition, the cathode was positioned over the contralateral supraorbital area. During the last five minutes of stimulation, participants were exposed to a frustrating number sequence task (unsolvable numerical sequences based on tests of general intelligence that were chosen by a fictitious partner), and later given a chance to behave aggressively against the same partner by performing the competitive reaction time task (CRTT), which is a variant of the TAP [ 184 ]. The results showed significantly higher aggression levels in the group exposed to anodal stimulation over the lVLPFC than after sham stimulation, whereas the baseline aggression scores did not differ between groups.…”

Behavioral tendencies of hostility: A new approach to personality assessment based on person-in-context units

“…Partner reports of aggressive behavior and mistreatment would be valuable to obtain in the context of romantic relationships. Other future directions include the use of longitudinal designs and the use of behavioral measures of impulsivity (e.g., Lejuez et al, 2002 ), aggression ( Warburton & Bushman, 2019 ), and social decision-making ( Zhao & Smillie, 2015 ).…”

Thinking through the social world: Further exploring the direct, moderated, and mediated relationship between need for cognition and aggression

“…Finally, future research should test whether our findings replicate when other measures of aggressive behavior are used. For instance, measuring aggressive using the average shock intensity given to an ostensible partner in the Competitive Reaction Time Task—a measure that has been shown to be a valid (Giancola & Zeichner, 1995; Warburton & Bushman, 2019)—may more closely approximate physically aggressive behavior. Moreover, we assessed reactive aggressive behavior and NFC may relate to proactive aggression with, perhaps, different mechanisms causing the relationship.…”