Validation of a brief measure of aggression for experience sampling research: The Aggression-ES-A

Murray, Aja Louise; Eisner, Manuel; Ribeaud, Denis; Booth, Tom

doi:10.31234/osf.io/un6hv

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, if the study is deemed worth running, it is worth considering if laboratory aggression approaches represent the best methodological option. There are many operationalizations of aggression available, including self‐report measures of trait aggressiveness (Buss & Perry, 1992; Chester & West, 2020), self‐report of behavioral instances of aggression (Straus et al, 1996), ecological momentary assessment (Murray et al, 2020), informant report (Tackett & Ostrov, 2010), hypothetical responding to vignettes (Crick & Dodge, 1996), behavioral observation (Bandura et al, 1961), and structured patient chart review (Brown et al, 1979). By using multiple aggression methodologies, researchers may be able to study aggression in a manner that is ultimately more holistic, multifaceted, pragmatic, and replicable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An empirically based power primer for laboratory aggression research

Hyatt

Crowe

West

et al. 2021

Aggressive Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent reviews suggest that, like much of the psychological literature, research studies using laboratory aggression paradigms tend to be underpowered to reliably locate commonly observed effect sizes (e.g., r = ~.10–.20, Cohen's d = ~0.20–0.40). In an effort to counter this trend, we provide a “power primer” that laboratory aggression researchers can use as a resource when planning studies using this methodology. Using simulation‐based power analyses and effect size estimates derived from recent literature reviews, we provide sample size recommendations based on type of research question (e.g., main effect vs. two‐way vs. three‐way interactions) and correlations among predictors. Results highlight the large number of participants that must be recruited to reach acceptable (~80%) power, especially for tests of interactions where the recommended sample sizes far exceed those typically employed in this literature. These discrepancies are so substantial that we urge laboratory aggression researchers to consider a moratorium on tests of three‐way interactions. Although our results use estimates from the laboratory aggression literature, we believe they are generalizable to other lines of research using behavioral tasks, as well as psychological science more broadly. We close by offering a series of best practice recommendations and reiterating long‐standing calls for attention to statistical power as a basic element of study planning.

show abstract