Aggressive Behavior; The Importance of Gender,
Parenting Styles and Socio-Economic Status
Carlos Marin
Abstract
Trying to better understand aggressive behavior, the following study
confronted the impact of gender, socioeconomic status, and parenting styles as
major contributing factors for this conduct. The hypothesis designed for this
research predicted that the parenting styles and socio-economic status to which
one is exposed are more important factors than gender in the risk for aggressive
comportments. A survey based on previous related research (Lawrence, 2006) was
administered to a sample of students (N = 100), which was randomly selected from
the population of a small, private, liberal arts university located in the
Midwest of the United States. The questionnaire asked participants to convey
their level of agreement on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 when provided with a
certain hypothetical situation. Subsequently, the answers were analyzed using
correlations, ANOVAs, and t-tests. The results, as initially predicted, pointed
to parenting styles to be the most significant variable related to the
likelihood and frequency of aggressive behavior among the participants. However,
the findings did not point at socioeconomic status or gender as major
contributing factors for this conduct, as it was initially predicted.
The academic discussion
about aggression and aggressive behavior has focused in understanding the
essence and causes of this phenomenon. Throughout recent decades, psychologists
and social scientists have faced the problem of measuring aggressive actions in
a quantifiable, observable manner, and to this end, a vast number of
psychometric scales have been designed by various disciplines. Comprehending the
true nature of this conduct, however, represents a crucial step to predict,
curb, and assess episodes of violence and conflict. These episodes have been
known to be characterized by various causal factors, and therefore, their
identification and assessment has recently emerged as an important task for the
social sciences. To truly understand aggression and aggressive behavior, it is
first important to evaluate the contributing factors that may affect the
likelihood of aggressive actions, either to a greater or lesser degree. One�s
gender, socio-economic status, and parenting styles have been defined to be
among the most influential of these instances (Viemero, 1996), and tend to be
present not only when aggression occurs, but also during the development of
personality since an early age (Bjorkqvist
and Osterman, 2008).
The following study will focus in measuring the varying degrees in which
aggression is influenced by gender, parenting styles, and socio-economic status.
Important to note is that the previously mentioned causal aspects are not
defined as being solely responsible for aggression. The limitations of this
study, both in methodology and scope, prevent the procedure to explore how
physiological predispositions may play a role in the likelihood of aggressive
behavior. In addition, however, it is important to note that the study of this
conduct represents a preponderant task for the social sciences. Although
prevalent among ecological niches, and also within the natural competition for
resources and shelter, aggressive behavior has been traditionally characterized
as a maladaptive comportment that results in tragic circumstances. Its
prediction, understanding, and assessment results are therefore crucial to
prevent the tragic repercussions that result from episodes of aggression, such
as crime, property destruction, and death.
Important is to note that the focus of this study will remain within the
limits of the college world, and will only select participants from a small,
liberal arts university located in the Mid-West of the United States. Its
methodology and results will therefore limit the discussion and application to
this, the college environment, a world characterized by complexities and
characteristics of its own nature. As a result, the methodology of this research
will evaluate how gender, parenting styles, and socio-economic status affect the
likelihood of aggressive behavior among a population understood as composed by
university students of a college age.
The first section of this paper is a review of the literature that has
focused on the characteristics and causes of aggressive behavior. It will serve
as a platform of information to understand the research that has taken place to
further the knowledge of this conduct from a psychometric, conceptual, and
statistical perspective. In addition, it will also serve as a basic foundation
that will be pertinent when explaining the method and results of this research,
as well as to discuss its findings.
When studying aggressive behavior, it becomes crucial to understand the
causal factors that may affect the likelihood of this conduct. In an attempt to
identify the variables in childhood that may predict both crime and episodes of
future aggression, Viemero (1996) explored several important variables that have
been found to be linked with a greater risk and probability for these actions.
Conducting a longitudinal or follow up study, the researcher interviewed several
teenagers throughout a period that ranged from their infancy to their late
adolescence. Using a sample 220 young infants, the study surveyed participants
who were 7 and 9 years old in 1978 when interviewed
for the first time (Viemero, 1996). Four
different groups of variables were chosen as possible predictive factors, and
were defined as 1) parental aggression, punitivity, and attitudes of rejection
toward the child, 2) previous acts of aggression by the subjects, 3) the viewing
of violence on television during childhood, and 4) aggressive, indifferent, and
delinquent behavior in adolescence. On the other hand, physical aggression in
adolescence and the number of arrests and traffic violations in young adulthood
were used as the dependent variables to be measured by the study. However, it
may be relevant to note that the findings of the study were discussed in a
separate way for each for women and for men (Viemero, 1996).
The analyses established that for men, the single most important predictor
of aggression in adolescence was found to be episodes of previous aggression,
whereas for women, the single most important predictor of physical and
non-physical aggression in adolescence was defined to be previous records of
viewing violent shows (Viemero, 1996). In
addition, the number of arrests in young adulthood was best predicted for the
male participants on the basis of previous aggression and the exposure of
violence on television as well as of other forms of entertainment. The best
predictor of the number of arrests in young adulthood for women was found to be
parental aggression, punitivity, and attitudes of rejection from both of the
parents. In the words of the researcher, �these results emphasize the importance
of the atmosphere of socialization during childhood as well as the significance
of previous episodes of aggressive behavior as predictors of aggression in
adolescence and of criminal behavior in young adulthood� (Viemero, 1996).
An
increasing body of academic research has recently focused in the importance of
parenting styles, as it was described in the previous study. This focus has been
utilized by the social sciences to identify the specific instances in which
parental interaction derives either in maladaptive or aggressive behavior.
Among many others, Bjorkqvist and
Osterman (2008)
have dedicated and important portion of their research to the exploration of the
degree to which parental influence derives
children's self-estimated aggressiveness. Measuring parenting styles through the
use of inventories, Bjorkqvist and Osterman (2008) sampled one hundred
seventy-four adolescents in order to establish the existence of a correlation
between this variable and the likelihood of aggressive behavior. The sample was
comprised by 85 girls and 89 boys with a mean age of 13.6 years and a standard
deviation from the mean of 0.7 years. In addition, the participants were chosen
from a suburban school known as prone to problems of aggression. Variables were
defined as follows: the dependent variable, aggressive personality, was measured
with the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory, cited in the researcher�s review of
literature (2008), while the independent variable, parental influence, was
measured with scales specifically developed by the researchers. The participants
were asked to rate their parental interaction according to 1) the emotional
relation to each parent; and 2) their perception of how their parents behave a)
with the child b) when angry c) at home and d) with their peers or relatives (Bjorkqvist
and Osterman, 2008).
The findings of the study revealed the existence of a very visible gender
related effect associated to parental influence and parental interaction.
According to the data, mothers and fathers affected sons and daughters in a
different way, given that a LISREL analysis demonstrated that mothers had a
clearly stronger impact on sons, while fathers had a slightly stronger effect on
daughters. The latter, however, was by no means as significant as the former (Bjorkqvist
and Osterman, 2008). When focusing on paternal
interaction, hitting, alcohol abuse, and a negative emotional relationship were
found to be strong predictors of aggressiveness and aggressive behavior among
daughters. However, aggressive fathers tended in general to get a counter
reaction with their sons, with the results shown to derive in a low level of
aggression. In the same way, predictors of aggressive behavior on the maternal
side were defined to be shouting and a negative emotional relationship. In the
case of daughters, the former was a more important predictor than the latter,
but in the case of sons, it was the other way around (Bjorkqvist and
Osterman, 2008).
The importance of parenting styles is commonly defined as one of the major
contributing factors for aggressive behavior, as it was described by the
previous study. However, the social environment of an individual has also gained
increasing attention among the social scientists concerned with the causal
factors of this comportment. The work of Russell and Hart (2003), for instance,
has focused in this specific variable. Trying to gain a greater knowledge of the
environmental instances that may derive the development of maladaptive and
violent conducts, the researcher compared samples from the US and Australia, and
explored how two different environments can exert an influence in the likelihood
of aggressive behavior (Russell and Hart, 2003). Along with gender, the social
setting of Australia and the United States was defined as an independent or
control variable. The research took place under the premise that the United
States and Australia are characterized by similar socialization practices, and
its methodology asked parents to complete questionnaires on parenting styles and
child temperament. To measure the dependent variable, which was defined as the
degree of aggression manifested by the children, preschool teachers rated the
social behavior of their students according a scale (Russell and Hart, 2003).
The children native to the United States were rated higher on both the
degree and the likelihood of aggression by teachers, and also scored higher on
sociability, activity, and level of emotional manifestations by parents (Russell
and Hart, 2003). In the same way, girls from the United States were rated as
more relationally aggressive than boys, with boys rated higher on physical
aggression. Mothers were more authoritative, with fathers more authoritarian in
the United States, although the latter was a result debated in the study due to
the different definitions of authoritarianism established in the cultural
practices of the two countries. In both the United States and Australia,
however, parenting consistently predicted child sociability and the likelihood
of aggressive behaviors (Russell and Hart, 2003). However, there was no mention
made with respect to socioeconomic status, biological predispositions, or other
pertinent variables.
After taking in consideration how parenting styles, biological factors and
socio economic status play a role in the likelihood of aggression, it is now
important to explore the literature that has focused in the effects of gender, a
variable that has been defined to be an influential contributing factor for
aggression. With the hypothesis that boy may experience a different emotional
retribution when engaging in aggressive behavior, Benenson and Carter
(2008) focused in the role of gender while exploring
a new and perhaps surprising side of aggression; the idea that it may act as a
source of pleasure. The methodology of the research studied a sample of
335 children, 209 boys, 126 girls, who were found among ages four, five, six and
nine year olds. In addition, it predicted that boys tend to obtain a greater
degree of gratification or pleasure as a result of, or when engaging in
aggressive actions. The participants were asked to describe they way in which
they play with their three favorite toys and their three favorite friends or
playmates; subsequently, their responses coded and evaluated according to a
previously designed scale for the presence of physical aggression.
The children were also asked to rate how often they enacted violent acts
shown on television, video games, and other media, and the degree to which they
obtained gratification when viewing contents related to aggression and
aggressive behavior (Benenson and Carter, 2008).
In a confirmation of the initial hypothesis, the results of the study
demonstrated that approximately 50% of boys at all age levels, and about less
than 10% of girls at all age levels, reported that at least one of their three
favorite toys was used for inflicting harm or injury through physical or
non-physical aggression on an inanimate being, like a toy or image. (Benenson
and Carter, 2008). With increasing age, however, boys rated physical aggression
in play activities and on television as more enjoyable than alternative male
sex-typed play and television content. When discussing the finding of the study,
the researcher suggested that its results may indicate that enlarging the
understanding of the development of aggression, both physical and non-physical,
�requires acknowledging the pleasure it provides to males� (Benenson and Carter,
2008).
Methodological limitations will prevent this
study from measuring the importance of biological predispositions as a
possible predictor of aggressive behavior. Therefore, it is very pertinent to
take a look into the publications that have focused in this facet of
aggression�s etiology to acquire a more complete conception of this conduct. As
a published author in the online journal of the BBC,
Williams (2004) summarized the conclusion of a
documentary broadcasted by this network in which the relevance of mental
conditions, medical problems, and physiological instances were measured as
related to aggressive behavior. Of the more
than one million violent crimes that were recorded in England between 2003 and
2004, estimates argue that 23% of all crime episodes can been attributed to poor
or non-existent diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in
children in care homes (Williams, 2004). In addition, brain abnormalities have
also been found to be associated with aggressive behaviors. According to the
study, �research using brain imaging have shown that a group of murderers had
poor functioning of the prefrontal cortex part of the brain - the area believed
to control and regulate aggressive behaviour. Some scientists believe therefore
that a person with a damaged or poor functioning prefrontal cortex has a
tendency to be violent and aggressive.� Brain damage during birth complications
was also found to result in a greater propensity for aggressive behaviors
(Williams, 2004).
However, Okey�s work on Human Aggression (1996) argues that aggressive
conducts result from a combination of factors. Prefaced by the premise that �the
etiology of human aggressiveness has profound implications for
therapeutic intervention, social policy, and planetary survival,� the
most central findings of the researcher�s work argue that aggression results
when biological, environmental and psychological factors coincide in �tragic
comination� (Okey p. 2, 1996). The study does not provide an experiment
characterized by evaluating the effect of independent variables on dependent
variables through the data provided by a randomly selected sample. On the other
hand, it is a review of the theoretical propositions found thoughout the work of
various social scientists in different fields (Okey, 1996). Finally, the
researcher argues that theories �supporting biological causation tend to be
excessively reductionistic and inadequate to account for human
aggressiveness, and that the umbrella or social learning theory-which
allows for biological predisposition, social factors, and personal
agency provides the most comprehensive model for understanding and
intervening in human aggression� (Okey, p. 3 1996).
Regardless of contributory and causal factors,
the work of social scientists has found that aggression takes many forms, from
full blown and physical, to indirect. Villancourt
and Miller (2007), from McMaster
University, Ontario, and the University of Montreal, at Quebec, studied
behavioral characteristics that may act as reliable predictors of Indirect
Aggression, and additionally, explored the
nature of this comportment. The methodology designed for this
purpose studied and modeled the development of indirect
aggression among a nationally
representative sample of 1,401 Canadian children from ages four to ten, and
examined predictors for this behavior. It is important to note, however, that
indirect aggression was defined by the study as a behavior that displays a
significant manifestation of anger or frustration, but that is not intended to
harm or injure a certain individual. To exemplify this concept, one can think of
an episode in which a person explosively throws an object at a wall after being
left alone. The independent variables were defined to be familial and
parenting interaction, prior
aggressive episodes, and socioeconomic status
(Villancourt and Miller, 2007).
Using logistic regression analyses to distinguish the girls from boys, the
researcher found that for girls the increasing use of indirect
aggression was associated with
prior aggressive episodes, low socio economic status and low
parental emotional support,
especially at an early age. As for boys, on the other hand, the increasing use
of indirect
aggression was associated with
parenting conflicts at an early age, as well as with inconsistency and
conflictive parental interactions. According to the researchers, �although this
study provides unique information regarding the early development of indirect
aggression and its predictors, more
longitudinal research is necessary to fully understand the characteristics of
its development�
(Villancourt and Miller, 2007, p. 56).
Given that the two previous articles have focused in gender and indirect
aggression, it may be not only interesting but also desirable to explore the
literature that reviews the relationship between these two instances.
Campbell and Muncer (2007) have explored how gender
exerts an influence in the expression of Anger, and proposed the existence of gender
differences in both the nature and expression of aggressive behavior. To be more
specific, the researchers predicted that women may have a greater tendency to
manifest aggression through an indirect manifestation, which is defined as the
attitudes and actions that lack the intent to harm or injure (Recall the example
of a person who screams or throws an object at a wall after a distressful event
while being alone). Aggressive behaviors, both injurious and non-injurious, or
direct or indirect, were scored in a questionnaire that asked participants their
rate the frequency and likelihood of use when feeling a sense of anger and
frustration. The sample used for the study selected 888 participants equally
distributed between men and women (Campbell and Muncer, 2007).
As initially predicted, the results of a confirmatory factor analysis
revealed the existence of two sub-categories of aggression; direct aggression
and indirect aggression. In addition, the latter category was found to contain
two further scales: explosive acts, such as throwing objects when alone, and
defusing acts, such as reliving stress by working out or through communicating
with a friend or a third party (Campbell and Muncer, 2007). By a significant
difference men exceeded women on direct aggression and explosive acts, whereas
women, on the other hand, exceeded men on defusing acts. In the same way,
expressive beliefs about aggression as for instance, the loss of self-control,
were higher among women and highly correlated with use of defusing acts, such as
talking to a friend, as well as with the avoidance of direct aggression. The use
of aggression as an instrumental tool to control others was found to be
significantly greater among men than among women. This concept is exemplified by
a typical situation in which the perceived threat of aggressive behavior of a
person may derive in a strong influence for the behaviors of others, especially
of emotional partners (Campbell and Muncer, 2007).
The causes and various facets of aggression have been widely described
by the previous studies. Therefore, and subsequent to this exploration, it may
be now important to explore the repercussions of aggressive behavior, its
frequency, and the degree to which this conduct is correlated with other
maladaptive conducts. The association between substance abuse, parenting
Styles, and Aggression, was explored in order to obtain greater knowledge about
the psychosocial world of weapon carrying students (Corvo and Williams, 2000).
In addition, the researchers focused on the degree to which aggressive behaviors
may result in criminal acts. Its methodology and findings represent one of the
first undertaken initiatives to focus solely in children that were charged of
bringing kniffes and weapons to school. Obtained through correlations and linear
regression, the results reflected the importance of communication between
children and other relatives, especially during meals. According to the study,
daily or even weekly family meals characterized by the present of siblings and
one or both parents was higly correlated with a much lesser probability of
aggressive behavior and weapon use (Corvo and Williams, 2000). However, the
study also found that a relatively high correlation between aggressive behavior
and subtance abuse. In the words of the researchers: �the
findings support the need for substance abuse
assessments and family interventions that strengthen disciplinary and protective
functions� (Corvo and Williams, 2000 p. 32).
Finally, it is now important to investigate the work focused in the
design of psychometric tools that allow for the measure of aggressive behavior
in a quantifiable form. It is important to note that the questionnaire developed
for this research is based upon several studies, some of which will be described
in this review of literature. Lawrence (2006) explored the reliability and
internal validity of the Situational Triggers of
Aggressive Responses (STAR) scale, an inventory designed to
measure aggressive behavior in a quantifiable manner.
Through examining the type of events that make people feel aggressive, the
researcher surveyed a sample of 145 participants in the hypothetical situations
that have been deemed as prone to trigger aggression by similar inventories,
such as the Buss and Perry scale for Aggression. The results of the study showed
good internal and external validity, and were composed of two main factors or
subscales: frustrations and provocations. A large body of knowledge has also
focused in the design of self-reported inventories, but most importantly in
their cross-cultural validity.
O�connor and Archer (2001) measured the reliability of a questionnaire
characterized by presenting specific aggressive-triggering situations. By asking
participants to express their level of aggression when being robbed,
disrespected, ignored, offended, or attacked, the study measured the internal
and external validity of an inventory designed by the authors. Two typical
questions of this questionnaire would be the following: 1) when someone steals a
valuable object, like an Ipod, a cell phone, or something with sentimental
value, I feel? 2) When someone makes an offensive remark to me, either about my
gender or age, my race, my weight and appearance, or about anything that offends
my dignity, I feel? Subsequent to the question, a Likert scale was provided for
the participants to score their level of agreement. In addition, however, the
study also discussed the development of a scale in which sentimental partners
predicted the likelihood that their significant other would engage in aggressive
behaviors.
Finally Archer, Kilpatrick, and Bramwell, compared the Buss Perry and the
STAR scale finding similar level of reliability and internal validity, while
Ekblad and Olweus (1996) evaluated the applicability of these inventories in
cross cultural environments, but more precisely by evaluating the applicability
of Olweus' Aggression Inventory in a sample of Chinese primary school children.
The findings of the study reported an unsurprising lack of resemblance
between the responses of this particular sample and those found in western
cultures (Olweus,1996). Overall, the statistical results indicated the existence
of distinct traits of aggression among Chinese infants, even despite �of strong
societal pressures against aggressive behavior and
towards aggression control� that prevail in China. Some other findings, however,
suggested that aggression may be a more global and commonly characterized human
tendency than previously expected, something that may be the case partially
because of universal human traits or due to the increasing existence of an
imposing global community.
After reviewing the literature focused in aggressive behavior,
several conclusions can be drawn. A growing body of knowledge indicated that
parenting styles exert a significant influence in the likelihood and degree of
aggressive conduct, not only for infants and adolescents, but also for adults.
Gender and socio-economic factors were also found to be important factors. As
for biological and genetic variables, the studies discussed here conveyed that a
biological theory for aggression tends to be too exhaustive, and that a more
eclectic approach that includes social and psychological aspects provides a
broader and more accurate perspective for this conduct. In addition, it can also
be concluded that aggression takes many forms and degrees The two main facets of
this behavior are defined as direct aggression, which is intended towards a
certain object, and indirect, which is only used to release internal
frustration. The latter can be exemplified by an episode in which an individual
throws an object to a wall while being left alone after a distressful event and
was found to be more prevalent in women than in men.
Knowledge related to aggression and aggressive behavior represents a
preponderant tool for the betterment of human societies. It allows for
authorities and social scientists to prevent, curb, and treat episodes that
threat the well being of individuals and groups in order to preserve a more
harmonic and humane global community. If this assessment does not occur, there
is an increasing risk for aggressive behaviors to translate into criminal and
antisocial acts that will endanger the well being of individuals and groups
alike. In addition, a greater understanding of this conduct will also help to
identify the variables that derive in other related maladaptive behaviors, such
as substance and alcohol addiction, self injury, and sexual abuse. The
exploration done by this review will also serve to explain the results obtained
after this study is conducted within the boundaries of the college environment.
Studies characterized by a specific nature of this kind are also important
because they provide an insight into a world that has its own particular
complexities.
The hypothesis for this study predicts that parenting styles and
socio-economic status exert a greater influence than gender in the likelihood of
aggressive behavior. To test this prediction, and to operationalize the
variables, participants will obtain an aggression score that rates their
probability to engage in aggressive acts, a score that defines the parenting
styles to which they were exposed, and a placement in a certain socio-economic
status of society. The scores will be obtained through the questionnaires
designed for this research, and the parenting styles will be defined in the
methodology section. Important to note is that the direction of the hypothesis
is not only plausible, but expectable due to different reasons. As noted in
several of the previously explained studies, parenting styles have been found to
be one of the most salient factors affecting the psychological and behavioral
growth of the individual, variables that are closely related to the likelihood
of aggressive behavior. In addition, the process of socialization has also been
found to be unequivocally affected by the socio-economic status where it takes
place. Therefore, it is expectable that both the latter and the former affect
gender in a comparable degree, and that their impact is more significant than
gender alone.
Method
Participants
One hundred students were
randomly selected from a small private liberal arts university located in the
Midwest of the United States. Of this sample, 45 were men and 55 women, with 80%
of the sample between the ages of 18 and 21, 13% between the ages of 22 and 25,
3% between the ages of 26 and 30, and 4% aged 31 or above. All of the students
enrolled at this institution had an equal chance of being selected to complete
the survey, which was administered in classes, sport practice sessions, and
other places of the campus. The population of this university is largely
comprised by Caucasians, although a smaller but still significant portion of
African Americans is present. Members of other minorities are also enrolled, but
to a much smaller degree. Gender wise, there is a relatively equivalent portion
of women and men. Participation occurred according to a completely voluntary
basis with no remuneration of any kind given after being involved in the
research. Those who answered the questionnaire were given the right to withdraw
at any time, to ask questions about the survey, and to contact the researcher if
any doubts were left unresolved. All the information that was pertinent or that
may have affected the completion of the questions was be provided, and in
addition, the �Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct�
(American Psychological Association, 1992) was thoroughly followed.
Materials
A survey based on previous related research (Lawrence, 2006) was
designed to measure four main variables; aggression, gender, parenting styles,
and socio-economic status. Although gender is self explanatory, the other three
factors required a more specific set of questions in order to obtain more
accurate and reliable answers from the participants. Techniques used by
Villancourt and Miller (2007) and Sinclair
(2001) were used to find the socio-economic status of those taking
part in the experiment. These strategies utilized a set of questions to ask the
estimated socioeconomic status of the participants, their yearly household
income, the level of education of their parents, and whether if their household
was comprised by one or two caregivers. Parenting styles were measured
according to Baumrind�s (1971) typology, which defines the three main approaches
of parenthood as Authoritarian, Democratic, and Permissive. The specific
questions for this research were nevertheless adapted from the study
�Psychometric Support for a New Measure of Authoritarian, Authoritative and
Permissive Practices: Cross Cultural Connections� (Clyde, 1996). The latter
lists several sub-factors within each style, and through the use of a Likert
scale establishes questions that provide a quantifiable way to identify
participants as exposed to a certain parenting style. Finally, aggression was
quantified according to the �Development of the Situation Triggers of Aggressive
Responses (STAR) scale� (Lawrence, 2006), which provides a set of items for
triggering events in which participants rate their potential level of aggression
when provided with a hypothetical circumstance.
Procedure
The questionnaire described above was administered to a random sample
of participants. The survey was initially field tested and IRB approved before
it was used for the statistical purposes of this research. After this initial
evaluation, and after the questionnaires were completed by the participants,
several statistical tests were conducted to understand the degree to which the
previously explained variables affect the likelihood of aggressive behavior. A
specific score was given separately to each gender on the basis of three
criteria: level of aggression, type of parenting, and membership to a certain
socio-economic status. In addition, a separate total score was computed for each
gender to measure each of the parenting styles, which were defined to be
Authoritarian, Democratic, and Permissive. Subsequently, frequencies,
correlations, and t-tests were used to determine the influence exerted by the
independent variables on the likelihood of aggression. The data obtained from
these calculations was processed using the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences, SPSS, and conclusions were drawn according to the statistical results
of the tests performed.
Results
The findings of the study indicated different results for each gender. Of
the three independent variables, the style of parenting to which participants
were exposed during their infancy was found to be the most important
contributing factor for aggressive behavior for women, but showed a lesser
influence for men. For women, a correlation showed a significant positive
association between Authoritarian Parenthood and aggression (r = 0.434, p =
0.001), and between Permissive Parenthood and the aggression (r = 0.313, p =
0.019). When comparing Democratic Parenthood with aggression for women, the
correlation showed a non-significant association between these two variables (r
= 0,241, p = 0.115) As for men, on the other hand, a significant positive
correlation was only found between Permissive Parenthood and aggression
(r = 0.347, p = 0.021). Authoritarian and Democratic Parenthood were found to
have no significant association with this score for the latter gender (r =
0.241, p = 0.115 and r = 0.56, p = 0.720 respectively). Correlations also found
the association between gender and aggression as not significant (p = -0.049, r
= 0.630). In the same way, socioeconomic status was also found to not have a
significant correlation with the score for aggression for both genders (r =
0.159, p = 0.115).
Correlations
|
|
|
DParenttot |
AParenttot |
PParenttot |
AggrTote |
|
DParenttot |
Pearson Correlation |
1 |
-.672(**) |
.045 |
-.223 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
.000 |
.743 |
.098 |
|
| N |
56 |
56 |
56 |
56 |
|
|
AParenttot |
Pearson Correlation |
-.672(**) |
1 |
-.054 |
.434(**) |
| Sig. (2-tailed) |
.000 |
|
.693 |
.001 |
|
| N |
56 |
56 |
56 |
56 |
|
|
PParenttot |
Pearson Correlation |
.045 |
-.054 |
1 |
.313(*) |
| Sig. (2-tailed) |
.743 |
.693 |
|
.019 |
|
| N |
56 |
56 |
56 |
56 |
|
|
AggrTote |
Pearson Correlation |
-.223 |
.434(**) |
.313(*) |
1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) |
.098 |
.001 |
.019 |
|
|
| N |
56 |
56 |
56 |
56 |
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table A: Correlation between Parenting Styles and Total Score of Aggression for Females
Correlations
|
|
|
DParenttot |
AParenttot |
PParenttot |
AggrTote |
|
DParenttot |
Pearson Correlation |
1 |
-.403(**) |
.282 |
.241 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
.007 |
.064 |
.115 |
|
| N |
44 |
44 |
44 |
44 |
|
|
AParenttot |
Pearson Correlation |
-.403(**) |
1 |
-.081 |
.056 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) |
.007 |
|
.599 |
.720 |
|
| N |
44 |
44 |
44 |
44 |
|
|
PParenttot |
Pearson Correlation |
.282 |
-.081 |
1 |
.347(*) |
| Sig. (2-tailed) |
.064 |
.599 |
|
.021 |
|
| N |
44 |
44 |
44 |
44 |
|
|
AggrTote |
Pearson Correlation |
.241 |
.056 |
.347(*) |
1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) |
.115 |
.720 |
.021 |
|
|
| N |
44 |
44 |
44 |
44 |
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table B: Correlation between Parenting Styles and Total
After performing a t-test, the association between gender and aggression was also found to be weak. A two tailed independent samples t-test analysis comparing total aggression scores for men and women indicated that male scores (M = 47.36) did not differ significantly from female scores (M = 46.44), t (98) = 0.484, p = 0.630. In addition, a one tailed independent samples t-test used to evaluate whether if men�s scores for Aggression were higher than those of women indicated that this was not the case, with t (98) = 0.484, p = 0.315. The results of the one and the two tailed t-test suggest that the propensity for aggression of the participants was found to be irrespective of their gender.
Group Statistics
|
|
Gender |
N |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Std. Error Mean |
|
AggrTote |
Male |
44 |
47.3636 |
9.85025 |
1.48498 |
| Female |
56 |
46.4464 |
9.05723 |
1.21032 |
Table C: Gender for Statistics Aggressive Behavior Total Score
Independent Samples Test
|
|
|
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances |
t-test for Equality of Means |
|||||||
|
|
|
F |
Sig. |
t |
df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
Mean Difference |
Std. Error Difference |
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower |
Upper |
|
AggrTote |
Equal variances assumed |
.480 |
.490 |
.484 |
98 |
.630 |
.91721 |
1.89639 |
-2.84611 |
4.68053 |
|
|
Equal variances not assumed |
|
|
.479 |
88.553 |
.633 |
.91721 |
1.91574 |
-2.88959 |
4.72400 |
Table D: Independent Sample T-test for Gender and Total Score for Aggression.
Finally, a one way ANOVA indicated that the scores of socioeconomic status were not significantly different to those of the aggression score, F (4, 95) = 2.105, p = 0.105. This result indicates that membership to a certain social strata was not found to be associated with a greater or lesser susceptibility for aggression, as it was previously established by the correlations conducted above. However, and as a particular result, the present study found that none of the participants rated themselves as members of the highest strata of society.
ANOVA
AggrTote
|
|
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
Between Groups |
537.161 |
3 |
179.054 |
2.105 |
.105 |
|
Within Groups |
8167.589 |
96 |
85.079 |
|
|
|
Total |
8704.750 |
99 |
|
|
|
Table E: Analysis of variance for Socioeconomic Status and Total Score for Aggression.
Table F: Bar Graph
of Socioeconomic Status
Discussion
The findings of this study are congruent with the initial hypothesis, which
predicted parenting styles to be more important contributing factors than gender
for the likelihood for aggressive behavior. Given that a permissive style was
found to be highly correlated with the probability of these comportments, it may
be useful to identify the nature of a child�s parental relationship if
disciplinary problems have been noted, or in order to predict the probability of
aggressive behavior in the future. Important is to note, however, that an
authoritarian parenting style was also found to be correlated with aggressive
conduct, which makes its detection important as well. (Viemer�, 1996). To
identify this parental approach, however, one should look for rejection, strict
control, harsh emotional and physical punishment, and a low participation of the
child in family decisions (Clyde 1996).
Membership in a low socioeconomic status was not found to be correlated
with the likelihood of aggressive behavior. This result could have occurred due
the socioeconomically homogenous nature of the population from which the sample
was selected. Taking a closer look at the frequencies related to this variable
it was easy to find an overwhelming concentration towards the middle segment of
society. The concurrence of an authoritarian parenting style and the membership
to a low socioeconomic status may however indicate a higher likelihood for
aggressive behavior, as indicated by Sinclair (2001). Finally, gender was found
to be a less important contributing factor than parental style when measuring
the likelihood of aggressive behavior. This finding does not act in accordance
to traditional notions of gender roles in which men are commonly found as more
prone to aggression (Campbell, 2008), but complies with the initial hypothesis
of this study.
Understanding aggressive behavior represents a crucial step to curb
episodes of violence and conflict. Only by gaining knowledge of the contributing
factors for aggression can psychologists predict the instances in which the
concurrence of different variables may derive or result in a greater likelihood
for aggressive behavior. Given that the present study took place in a college
campus and was conducted with participants that were all college students, its
content enlarges the knowledge related to aggressive behavior within the
environment of the college world. This environment is characterized by its own
nature and its own complexities, and as result, it may be necessary to do
further research that separates its population from that of other social
structures. This study attempts to do precisely that, and tries to fill the
absence of knowledge related to aggressive behavior specifically among college
students.
The findings of this study also portray the changing gender roles of modern
American Society. The fact that aggressive behaviors was not found to be highly
correlated with gender indicates that women have broken traditional and outdated
social notions that defined their gender as passive, and in which bursts of
emotional manifestations were deemed to be impolite and unfeminine. In addition,
the idea of a more aggressive woman may be related to one that is more assertive
and to the fact that society may provide rewards when displaying aggressive
behavior when facing threatening situations. These conclusions are, however, not
surprising, nor do they act against observable modern trends. A growing number
of women are attending and graduating from higher education, even at rates
higher than men, and it is observable that the work force has experienced an
increasing amount of females in managerial and above managerial positions
(Campbell, 2008). Therefore, the findings of this study provide a statistical
support for a possible explanation of this trend; the idea that women happen to
be more aggressive and assertive than in the past.
The limitations of the present study prevent its methodology from
evaluating the impact of genetic and biological factors. These variables may
play a significant role that may offset the significance of gender, parenting
styles, and socio-economic status, making their influence possibly void.
Physiological factors may also exert a different impact in different
populations. For instance, to hypothesize an example, one can speculate that men
may be more prone to inherit evolutionary traits that increase the likelihood of
aggressive actions, while it may also be possible that Caucasians are
genetically wired to be more passive than Hispanics (Benenson, 2008). In
addition, the findings of this study are the result of a sample drawn from
college students, and the results presented here are mainly applicable to this
population. Despite these limitations, the findings of this study provide tools
to gain a better understanding of the nature and contributing factors for
aggression.
References
Anderson, C., & Bushman, B. (2001, September). Effects of Violent Video Games on
Aggressive Behavior, Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Affect,
Physiological
Arousal, and Prosocial Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the
Scientific
Literature. Psychological Science, 12(5), 353.
Retrieved November 10, 2008, from
Academic Search Premiere Database.
Anderson, C., & Murphy, C. (2003,
October). Violent video games and aggressive behavior in
young women. Aggressive Behavior, 29(5), 423-429.
Retrieved November 10, 2008,
doi:10.1002/ab.10042.
Archer, J., Kilpatrick, G., &
Bramwell, R. (1995, October). Comparison of Two Aggression
Inventories. Aggressive Behavior, 21(5), 371-380.
Retrieved October 1, 2008, from
Academic Search Premier database.
Benenson, J., Carder, H., & Geib-Cole, S. (2008, March). The development of
boys'
preferential pleasure in physical aggression. Aggressive
Behavior, 34(2), 154-166.
Retrieved November 5, 2008, doi:10.1002/ab.20223
Bjorkqvist, K., & Osterman, K. (1992, December). Parental Influence on
Children's Self-
Estimated Aggressiveness. Aggressive Behavior, 18(6),
411-423. Retrieved November
1, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.
Campbell, A., & Muncer, S. (2008,
May). Intent to harm or injure? Gender and the expression
of anger. Aggressive Behavior, 34(3), 282-293.
Retrieved November 5, 2008,
doi:10.1002/ab.20228.
Clyde, P. (1996). Psychometric Support for a New Measure of Authoritative,
Authoritarian, and
Permissive Parenting styles. Parenting Styles, 32(6), 44
� 56.
Coplan, R., Hastings, P., Lagace-Seguin,
D., & Moulton, C. (2002, January). Authoritative
and Authoritarian Mothers' Parenting Goals, Attributions, and
Emotions Across
Different Childrearing Contexts. Parenting: Science & Practice,
2(1), 1. Retrieved
November 1, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.
Corvo, K., & Williams, K. (2000,
October). Substance Abuse, Parenting Styles, and
Aggression: An Exploratory Study of Weapon Carrying Students.
Journal of Alcohol &
Drug Education, 46(1), 1. Retrieved November 1, 2008,
from Academic Search Premier
database.
Ekblad, S., & Olweus, D. (1986, October). Applicability of Olweus' Aggression
Inventory in
a Sample of Chinese Primary School Children. Aggressive
Behavior, 12(5), 315-325.
Retrieved October 1, 2008, from Academic Search Premier
database.
Farrell, A., Kung, E., White, K., & Valois, R. (2000, June). The structure of
self-reported
aggression, drug use, and delinquent behaviors during early
adolescence. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 29(2), 282-292. Retrieved
November 1, 2008, from
PsycINFO database.
Lawrence, C. (2006, May). Measuring Individual Responses to
Aggression-Triggering Events:
Development of the Situational Triggers of Aggressive Responses
(STAR) Scale.
Aggressive Behavior, 32(3), 241-252. Retrieved
November 1, 2008, from:
doi:10.1002/ab.20122
O'Connor, D., Archer, J., & Wu, F. (2001). Measuring aggression: Self-reports,
partner
reports, and responses to provoking scenarios. Aggressive
Behavior, 27(2), 79-101.
Retrieved November 1, 2008, doi:10.1002/ab.2
Russell, A., Hart, C. (2003, January). Children's sociable and aggressive
behaviour with peers:
A comparison of the US and Australia, and contributions of
temperament and parenting
styles. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
27(1), 74-86. Retrieved
November 5, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.
Sinclair, G. (2001). Equity Indicators: Measures of Socio-Economic Status at
Victoria University
of Technology. Journal of Sociology, 66 � 78.
Vaillancourt, T., Miller, J., Fagbemi, J., C�t�, S., & Tremblay, R. (2007,
July). Trajectories
and predictors of indirect aggression: results from a nationally
representative
longitudinal study of Canadian children aged 2�10. Aggressive
Behavior, 33(4), 314-
326. Retrieved November 5, 2008, doi:10.1002/ab.20202.
Viemer�, V. (1996, March).
Factors in Childhood That Predict Later Criminal Behavior.
Aggressive Behavior, 22(2), 87-97. Retrieved October
1, 2008, from Academic Search
Premier database.
Williams, A (2004, December)
Biological predisposition to violence: facts behind
the fiction
BBC News Program, Journal of British Psychology.
Retrieved November 1, 2008, from
Academic Search Premier database.
Appendices
Appendix A: Survey
Informed Consent: Thank you for your participation. Participation is on a voluntary basis, and you may withdraw at any time. All the information you provide here will remain confidential and will be used only for experimental and statistical purposes. Please feel free to contact to the researcher, Carlos Marin at [email protected], or the faculty adviser Murella Bosse, at [email protected]. You must be 18 to complete the survey.
Please Circle
1. Age:
18 � 21 22 � 25 26 � 30 31 and above
2. Gender
Male Female
3. Growing up, I was a member of the:
Lower Class Lower Middle Class Middle Class Upper Middle Class Upper Class
4. On average, the total yearly income of the caregivers of the household where I grew up was:
10,000 to 15,000 15001 to 60000 60001 to
99999 100000 to 120000 < 120000
5. My father, or my male caregiver has:
A high-school degree Some College Associates Degree A college Degree
Masters degree
or above
7. My mother, or my female caregiver has:
A high-school degree Some College Associates Degree
A college Degree Masters degree
or above
6. In my household I grew up with:
No Siblings 1 Sibling 2 Siblings 3
or more siblings
7. During most of my infancy, I grew up in a:
Single caregiver household Two parent, or two caregiver household
8. My family owned their own home and/or owned other
properties or assets:
Yes No
Please circle the frequency that characterized these situations when interacting with your parents while growing up:
1. When I was frustrated, upset, or hurt, my parents showed empathy for me:
1 2
3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
2. My parents expressed physical affection to me by hugging, kissing, and/or
holding me:
1 2
3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
3. My parents praised me when I was successful in something, and encouraged me to start projects and activities that required effort:
1 2
3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
4. My parents talked and reasoned with me when I misbehaved or broke a rule:
1 2
3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
5. My parents gave reasons for rules, explained why it was
important to obey them, and explained the consequences for their violation:
1 2 3
4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
6. My parents took my input into account when deciding family plans and family rules:
1 2
3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
7. My parents encouraged me to express my thoughts and ideas freely:
1 2
3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
8. My parents were easy going and relaxed with me when I was growing up:
1 2
3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
9. I felt scolded and criticized by my parents:
1 2
3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
10. I felt my parents demanded me to do things without discussion:
1 2
3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
11. My parents used some type of physical punishment if I was disobedient:
1 2
3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
12. If I acted in a disobedient way, my parents isolated me or took privileges away without much explanation:
1 2
3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
13. My parents used to discipline and punish me first, and then tried to talk to me when I misbehaved:
1 2
3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
14. My parents stated: Because I said so, or because I�m your parent and I want you to:
1 2
3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
15. My parents yelled, shouted and acted aggressively when my behavior was displeasing to them:
1 2
3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually
Always
16. My parents threatened to punish me if I acted in a certain way and then did not deliver the punished they had promised:
1 2
3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
17. My parents gave into my demands when I threw a tantrum about something:
1 2
3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
18. My parent rarely disciplined me, or found it difficult to correct my behavior if I misbehaved:
1 2
3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
19. My parents allowed me to annoy or interrupt others, and ignored the fact that my behavior broke previously established rules:
1 2
3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always
20. My parents followed most of my wishes
1 2
3 4 5
Never Rarely Sometimes Usually
Always
Please express your level of aggression, or the level to which you get �pissed off� when facing the following hypothetical situations:
1. When someone steals a valuable object, like an Ipod, a cell Phone, or something with sentimental value for me, I feel:
1 2
3 4 5
Not Aggressive A Little Somewhat
Very Extremely
at All Aggressive Aggressive
Aggressive Aggressive
2. When someone makes an offensive remark to me, either about my gender or age, my race, my weight and appearance, or about anything that offends my dignity, I feel:
1 2
3 4 5
Not Aggressive A Little Somewhat
Very Extremely
at All Aggressive Aggressive
Aggressive Aggressive
3. When someone insults me using offensive language, discriminatory terms, or swear words that are highly demeaning to me I feel:
1 2
3 4 5
Not Aggressive A Little Somewhat
Very Extremely
at All Aggressive Aggressive
Aggressive Aggressive
4.
When my roomate or the people I live show lack of consideration with me,
or when they show lack of hygiene or act in an excessively disorganized way I
feel,
1 2
3 4 5
Not Aggressive A Little Somewhat
Very Extremely
at All Aggressive Aggressive
Aggressive Aggressive
5.
When someone who is drunk behaves inconsiderately towards me, I feel:
1 2
3 4 5
Not Aggressive A Little Somewhat
Very Extremely
at All Aggressive Aggressive
Aggressive Aggressive
6.
When it seems that those around me are becoming hostile and aggressive I
feel:
1 2
3 4 5
Not Aggressive A Little Somewhat Very
Extremely
7. When someone is rude or inconsiderate with me in a public place or common area like a shopping mall, a public bus or a library I feel:
1 2
3 4 5
Not Aggressive A Little Somewhat
Very Extremely
at All Aggressive Aggressive
Aggressive Aggressive
8. When I feel that someone is deliberately ignoring me I feel:
1 2
3 4 5
Not Aggressive A Little Somewhat
Very Extremely
at All Aggressive Aggressive
Aggressive Aggressive
9. When I am driving and I feel that someone commits a traffic violation that affects me I feel:
1 2
3 4 5
Not Aggressive A Little Somewhat
Very Extremely
at All Aggressive Aggressive
Aggressive Aggressive
10.
When I feel frustrated with the costumer service of a certain company or
store because these services were incompetent, insufficient, slow, or the
treatment was rude I feel:
1 2
3 4 5
Not Aggressive A Little Somewhat
Very Extremely
at All Aggressive Aggressive
Aggressive Aggressive
11.
When I feel a noise that is highly annoying that I cannot control and it
is impossible for me to move from that location I feel:
1 2
3 4 5
Not Aggressive A Little Somewhat
Very Extremely
at All Aggressive Aggressive
Aggressive Aggressive
12. When I have a strong dispute or argument with my significant other and I feel that he/she is being selfish, un-thoughtful, dishonest or inconsiderate about my emotions and/or about my point of view I feel:
1 2
3 4 5
Not Aggressive A Little Somewhat
Very Extremely
at All Aggressive Aggressive
Aggressive Aggressive
13. When I feel stressed or overwhelmed by the current situations in my life I feel:
1 2
3 4 5
Not Aggressive A Little Somewhat
Very Extremely
at All Aggressive Aggressive
Aggressive Aggressive
14. When I feel a Professor dislikes me or is extremely unfair with his or her grading I feel:
1 2
3 4 5
Not Aggressive A Little Somewhat Very
Extremely
at All Aggressive Aggressive
Aggressive Aggressiv
15. When someone attacks me physically I feel:
1 2
3 4 5
Not Aggressive A Little Somewhat
Very Extremely
at All Aggressive Aggressive
Aggressive Aggressive
16.
When I have to use a computer for homework, and I cannot find a place
because all the computer labs are filled with people looking at their facebook
profile, I feel:
1 2
3 4 5
Not Aggressive A Little Somewhat
Very Extremely
at All Aggressive Aggressive
Aggressive Aggressive
Appendix B: Institutional Review Board Expedited Approval
McKendree University
Research Institutional Review Board Form
©