AGGRESSIVE AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR Volume 34, pages 428–436 (2008)
Effects of Alcohol Intoxication and Aggressivity on Aggressive Verbalizations During Anger Arousal Christopher I. Eckhardtà and Cory Crane Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : We examined the moderating effect of dispositional aggressivity on the relationship between alcohol intoxication and aggressive verbalizations. Using a laboratory anger-induction task that simulated an interpersonal conflict as a method to assess aggressive verbalizations (the articulated thoughts in simulated situations paradigm), 70 participants (33 women, 37 men) consumed either an alcoholic or a placebo beverage, and then imagined a series of audiorecorded interpersonal scenarios. Two blind-to-condition raters assessed assessed the frequency frequency of participants participants’’ aggressive aggressive verbalizations verbalizations (insults, aggressive threats, belligerent belligerent provocations) provocations) articulated articulated during anger arousal. Aggressivity Aggressivity was assessed using a standard standard measure of dispos dispositiona itionall aggression. aggression. Results supported the aggressivity moderation hypothesis: intoxicated participants high in aggressivity responded with significantly more aggressive verbal verbalizat izations ions relati relative ve to low-ag low-aggres gressiv sivity ity part partici icipant pantss regardl regardless ess of beverage beverage conditi condition, on, and three three times times mor moree aggr aggress essive ive verbalizations relative to the high-aggressivity/placebo group. There were no gender effects. These data support the hypothesis that alcohol potentiates aggression primarily among individuals at dispositional risk for engaging in such a behavior. Aggr. Behav. 34:428–436, 2008. 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Keywords: aggression; aggressivity; alcohol; anger; ATSS ATSS
INTRODUCTION
Alco Alcoho holl use use is asso associ ciat ated ed with with inte interp rper erso sona nall violen violence ce and agg aggres ressio sion, n, as indica indicated ted by a wealth wealth of laborator laboratory y [e.g., [e.g., Giancola Giancola and Zeichner, Zeichner, 1997] and longit longitudi udinal nal [e.g., [e.g., Fals-S Fals-Stew tewart art et al., al., 200 2003] 3] invest investiga igatio tions. ns. Alt Althou hough gh the consis consisten tency cy of the alcohol–aggression1 relationship is robust, the magnitude nitude of the effect effect is modera moderate, te, sugges suggestin ting g that that additional additional moderatin moderating g situation situational, al, psychologi psychological, cal, and and meth method odol olog ogic ical al vari variab able less are are nece necess ssar ary y to full fully y expla xplain in how alco lcohol hol use use may rela relatte to aggression [Ito et al., 1996; Parrott and Giancola, 2007; Taylor and Chermack, 1993]. Recent evidence sugges suggests ts that that one such such modera moderatin ting g factor factor may be ‘‘aggressivity,’’ or perpetrators’ dispositional levels of aggressive behavior [e.g., Giancola, 2002a]. In the present investigation, we evaluated whether aggressivity moderated the association between alcohol use and verbal verbal agg aggres ressio sion n using using an angeranger-ind induct uction ion 1
As there there can be confusio confusion n regardin regarding g the conceptu conceptual al distincti distinction on between between aggr aggressio ession n and violence, violence, we operatio operationaliz nalizee these these terms terms in accordance with the definitions set forth by Anderson and Bushman [2002]. Aggression is defined broadly as any person-directed behavior intended to cause harm, whereas violence is the subset of aggression involving the goal of severe harm, such as a crippling injury.
2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
laboratory paradigm to assess on-line responses to audio stimuli. The accumulated research on alcohol and aggression clearly clearly indicates indicates that consumption consumption of alcohol alcohol does not unilaterally cause aggressive behavior [e.g., Ito Ito et al., l., 199 1996]. 6]. Inst Insteead, ad, the data data sugg sugges estt a vulnerability model of alcoho alcoholl and agg aggres ressio sion n in which intoxicated individuals are both more likely to interpret ambiguous stimuli in the environment as threatening and to respond aggressively to perceived threat threatss than than when when sober sober [Schmu [Schmutte tte et al., al., 197 1979]. 9]. Thus, this vulnerability model suggests that alcohol use increases increases the likelihoo likelihood d of aggr aggressiv essivee behavior behavior primarily primarily among among individual individualss who possess possess aggr aggresession-relevant traits [Pernanen, 1991]. In support of this model, researchers have suggested a variety of Grant sponsor: Alcoholic Beverage Medical Research Foundation. Ã
Corres Correspon ponden dence ce to: Christ Christoph opher er I. Eckhar Eckhardt, dt, Depart Departmen mentt of Psycholog Psychological ical Sciences, Sciences, Purdue Purdue Universit University, y, 703 3rd Street, Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907. E-mail:
[email protected] Received 31 August 2007; Revised 12 December 2007; Accepted 12 December 2007 Published Published online 28 February February 2008 in Wiley Wiley InterScie InterScience nce (www. (www. interscience.wiley.com). interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ab.20249 10.1002/ab.20249
Aggressivity and Alcohol Intoxication
vulnerability factors that moderate alcohol’s effects on aggressive behavior, including high trait anger, low anger control [Giancola et al., 2003; Parrott and Giancola, 2004], a history of frequent aggressive responding, and presence of antisocial personality disorder [Fals-Stewart et al., 2005; Moeller and Dougherty, 2001]. To date, several laboratory studies involving an alcohol manipulation have specifically examined the aggressivity construct as a potential moderator of the alcohol–aggression relationship. Aggressivity, which refers to an individual’s trait-level tendency to engage in aggressive behavior, is considered distinct from trait anger (a dispositional tendency to experience episodes of state anger across situations) and anger control, which refers to active efforts to control or lessen the intensity of anger experience [Deffenbacher et al., 1996; Giancola et al., 2003]. Bailey and Taylor [1991] demonstrated that intoxicated males high in aggressivity responded to provocation with elevated aggression relative to sober control group participants. There were no differences in aggressive responding among individuals low in aggressivity regardless of alcohol condition (ALC). Moeller et al. [1998] also reported that alcohol was associated with laboratory aggression primarily among individuals with antisocial traits (only males were evaluated). In contrast, Pihl et al. [1997] reported no differences in intoxicated aggression among males during laboratory provocation across levels of aggressivity, although some have questioned the quality of the aggressivity measure employed [Giancola, 2002a]. Finally, Giancola [2002a] and Giancola et al. [2005] found that alcohol intoxication was associated with aggressive responding only among participants high in aggressivity, especially among males. Thus, the limited laboratory research to date suggests that the psychopharmacological properties of alcohol may exert the strongest effects on aggression on those individuals who are dispositionally prone to act aggressively. The few laboratory studies in this area have almost exclusively relied upon a single experimental analogue for assessing aggressive behavior, the Taylor aggression paradigm [TAP; Taylor, 1967]. Participants in the TAP paradigm believe that they are engaged in a competitive reaction time game against a concealed opponent that is, in reality, fictional. In a common version of the paradigm, participants administer a shock to the opponent when they win a trial. If they lose, they receive a shock; frequency and magnitude of shock delivery are the proxy measures for aggression. This
429
paradigm has been used extensively in the literature and earlier reviews have indicated a number of associated strengths and weaknesses [Giancola and Chermack, 1996; Tedeschi and Quigley, 1996, 2000]. However, to establish generalizable findings, it is critical to use as many empirically supported measures of a construct as possible. This is particularly true in the context of aggression assessment, as noted by Parrott and Giancola [2007]: ‘‘The measurement of aggression must reflect the multifaceted nature of the construct. We, therefore, advocate for the use of multiple measures of aggression’’ (p. 295). Thus, one of the goals of the present report is to replicate and extend earlier research by examining whether intoxicated aggression assessed with a non-TAP aggression assessment methodology would be moderated by participants’ levels of aggressivity. This study builds upon previous work using the articulated thoughts in simulated situations (ATSS) paradigm [Davison et al., 1983], a laboratory thought production method wherein participants imagine a series of digitally recorded anger-arousing interactions involving fictional social conflicts and verbalize immediate cognitive and affective content. In a series of studies using this well-validated method [Davison et al., 1997], Eckhardt et al. [2002] found that violent males articulated more aggressive, insulting, and belligerent verbalizations during anger arousal relative to nonviolent males [Barbour et al., 1998]. In addition, males with a history of intimate partner violence articulated more demanding, rigid, and inflexible cognitive distortions than nonviolent males, but only during anger arousal [Eckhardt et al., 1998; Eckhardt and Jamison, 2002]. More recently, Eckhardt [2007] reported that alcohol intoxication before ATSS anger arousal was associated with increased aggressive verbalizations among males with a history of intimate partner violence, especially those who reported high levels of anger arousal from pre- to post-ATSS; this effect was not observed among nonviolent males. Thus, the ATSS anger arousal paradigm, which uses aggressive verbalizations as a proxy measure for aggressive behavior, has proven to be a useful method of assessing aggressionrelevant behaviors and in discriminating between aggressive vs. nonaggressive samples. In this study, college-aged males and females were randomly assigned to consume alcohol or a placebo beverage and then imagined a series of ATSS angerarousing interpersonal conflicts. The primary outcome measure was participants’ aggressive verbalizations during the conflict (insults, threats of Aggr. Behav.
430 Eckhardt and Crane
physical aggression, belligerent statements); as in earlier research [Giancola, 2002a], trait aggressivity was assessed with the Physical Aggression Scale of the Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire [BPAQ; Buss and Perry, 1992]. We hypothesized that aggressivity would moderate the relationship between ALC and aggressive verbalizations such that those high in aggressivity would exhibit more aggressive verbalizations than those low in aggressivity, particularly after alcohol consumption. In addition, given the limited research involving an alcohol challenge regarding gender differences in laboratory aggression [Giancola, 2002b], we explored whether gender directly or indirectly predicted aggressive verbalizations.
METHOD
Participants were 70 (33 women, 37 men) individuals aged 21–30 (M 5 22.63, SD 5 2.40) recruited via flyers and newspaper advertisements distributed at various urban, southwestern universities, and community colleges. Study eligibility was determined during telephone screening and required participants to report (a) regular consumption of alcohol comparable to the doses administered in this study on standard quantity-frequency drinking measures, (b) no history of alcohol-related problems (i.e., no current/past alcohol-related disorders, treatment, or hospitalization), (c) no family history of drinking problems, and (d) no medical condition or medication usage that would contraindicate alcohol consumption. Eligible participants were told to refrain from drinking for 24 hr as well as from smoking and eating for 2 hr before their lab session. Participants received $20. The sample consisted of 49 White/Caucasian, 11 Latino/Hispanic, 4 Black/African American, 4 Asian American, and 2 other-ethnicity individuals. Most participants were single/never married (90%); about one-third (34%) were members of a fraternity or sorority.2
Measures Aggressivity. As in earlier alcohol–aggressivity research [Giancola, 2002a], the nine-item physical aggression subscale of the well-validated 2
Correlational and w2 analyses indicated that participants in the two beverage conditions were equivalent with regard to age ( P 5 .42), marital status (P 5 .71), fraternity/sorority affiliation ( P 5 .88), and ethnicity (P 5 .29). Aggr. Behav.
BPAQ [Buss and Perry, 1992] was used to assess aggressivity.3 Respondents endorsed the extent to which items on this scale were self-descriptive on a 5-point scale (1 5 not at all, 5 5 very much). Scores for males (M 5 19.6, SD 5 5.3) were significantly higher than scores for females (M 5 16.4, SD 5 5.2), t(68) 5 2.56, Po.02, supporting earlier research indicating that males tend to report more extensive histories of aggressive behavior than females [Baillargeon et al., 2004; Bettencourt and Kernahan, 1997]. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s a) was a 5 .85. Anger-related affect. To measure changes in anger-related affect throughout the experimental procedure, participants rated affective states on a Mood Rating Scale (MRS) that was an abridged version of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule—Expanded Form [Watson and Clark, 1992]. The MRS consists of 15 mood adjectives rated on 7-point Likert scales ranging from not at all (1) to extremely (7). Five adjectives that form a distinguishable anger factor were included [angry, hostile, irritable, disgusted, and annoyed; Watson and Clark, 1992] and were averaged to obtain a single anger experience measure (a 5 .88). Filler adjectives were also included. This measure was administered three times. The first was before beginning the ATSS, then again after the two ATSS scenarios. There were no differences between males and females on anger experience items at any measurement point, which is consistent with earlier research demonstrating no gender differences on state and trait anger [Deffenbacher et al., 1996].
Procedure Consent. Upon arrival to the laboratory, participants were told that the experiment was investigating the relationship between alcohol use and social imagination and provided a breath sample to check for intoxication via a Breathalyzer 7410 (Draeger Safety, Durango, CO). No individuals had blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) higher than .00%. Participants gave informed consent and female participants self-administered a pregnancy test, with a negative result required for continued participation (no positive tests were received), and 3
The Physical Aggression Scale of the BPAQ, which served as our primary measure of aggressivity, was significantly correlated with ATSS physical aggression ( r 5 .28, Po.05) and belligerence (r 5 .25, Po.05), but not with ATSS verbal aggression ( r 5 .22, P 5 .10). The BPAQ Verbal Aggression Scale did not significantly correlate with ATSS verbal aggression (r 5 .08), physical aggression (r 5 .15), or belligerence (r 5 .09) outcomes. This pattern of data supports the use of the BPAQ physical aggression subscale as a measure of the respondent’s proneness to engage in physical aggression.
Aggressivity and Alcohol Intoxication
the experimenter gathered height and weight data to determine beverage amounts. Participants then completed an assessment packet, from which two measures are relevant to this report. Beverage manipulation. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two alcohol administration conditions via random number generator before their arrival to the laboratory: alcohol or active placebo. Although several earlier investigations have used a sober/no-alcohol control group, numerous meta-analytic reviews have indicated that although alcohol groups exhibit higher levels of aggressive responding relative to placebo groups, placebo groups do not typically differ from no-alcohol control groups in aggressive responding [Bushman and Cooper, 1990; Ito et al., 1996]. In keeping with earlier research in this area [e.g., Giancola, 2002a], we chose to use the alcohol vs. placebo beverage conditions assignment strategy to better equalize alcohol-related expectancies than would be possible using a no-alcohol control condition. Participants were randomly assigned to a beverage condition before arrival, which was necessary to allow for proper priming of the laboratory room. To support the notion that alcohol group designation was indeed randomly determined, participants selected a slip of paper indicating group assignment from a jar. Both slips of paper, regardless of true beverage condition, indicated that the participant would be in the alcohol group. Participants in the ALC were given a dose of 100% ethanol poured from a clear plastic container mixed with a lemon-lime soft drink at a 1:6 mixture ratio sufficient to yield a BAC of .09 mg/cL. Beverage amounts were determined via a BAC computer program [Curtin et al., 1998] that calculated the mL of ethanol needed to produce the target peak BAC relative to the participant’s height, weight, and drinking time. Participants consumed their beverages in three consecutive 10-min periods, followed by a 20-min absorption period. During the drinking phase, instructions were given concerning the ATSS task (see below). A filler questionnaire was completed during absorption. Participants in the active-placebo condition (PLA) observed what appeared to be 3–4 oz of alcohol from a clear plastic container being mixed with lemon-lime soda. The container was actually premixed with a 1:6 concentration of 100% ethanol and flattened lemon-lime soda. Ethanol amounts for each participant were obtained from the BAC computer program sufficient to achieve a BAC of .01 mg/cL. To align peak BACs with the start of anger induction, the participant consumed
431
beverages in two 10-min periods while obtaining ATSS instructions, followed by a 10-min absorption period and filler questionnaire completion. After beverage administration, participants provided breath samples and heard their BAC evidence card being printed in an adjacent room. Following procedures developed by Leonard and Roberts [1998], the experimenter secretly switched the actual card with one preset at .05 mg/cL and presented this to ALC or PLA participants as an evidence of their BAC. This was necessary to optimize the likelihood of convincing both groups that their BACs were at a moderate level, to better equalize the experiences of ALC and PLA participants, and to more specifically establish alcohol pharmacology as the manipulation. Before the ATSS, participants also completed a one-item perceived drunkenness assessment [Zeichner et al., 1995], with 1 5 ‘‘not drunk at all’’ and 9 5 ‘‘the most drunk I’ve ever been,’’ as well as the MRS. Sample sizes of males and females across ALCs were as follows: alcohol : males 5 23, females 5 17; active placebo: males 5 14, females 5 16. Articulated thoughts in simulated situations (ATSS). Participants received instructions to the ATSS procedure [Davison et al., 1983] stating that they would listen to, and imagine that they were involved in, two audiotaped scenarios. During these scenarios, participants were instructed to talk out loud about their thoughts and feelings into a microphone connected to a voice recorder when they heard a prompting tone, and to continue talking until they heard another tone signaling that the scenario was about to continue. Two ATSS scenarios (one neutral, one anger arousing) used in earlier research [e.g., Eckhardt, 2007], and adapted for a college student sample, were presented to participants on an uninterrupted compact disc. In the neutral scenario, participants imagined that they were waiting for a friend at a restaurant and overheard a conversation between an unknown couple, who discussed their plans for their weekend and had an uneventful interaction. In the angerarousing jealousy scenario, participants imagined that they dropped in unannounced on their romantic partner at her/his apartment only to find their partner flirtatiously conversing with an acquaintance of the opposite gender. Each scenario consisted of eight 30-sec segments of simulated interaction separated by 30-sec thought articulation pauses. As in earlier ATSS studies, the neutral scenario preceded the anger scenario for all participants. Previous studies have successfully used the ATSS procedure with both male and female samples Aggr. Behav.
432 Eckhardt and Crane
[e.g., DiLiberto et al., 2002]. The experimenter left the lab room until the end of the ATSS. Articulations were recorded by a microphone attached to a digital voice recorder, and participants were prompted by a narrator to complete the MRS after each ATSS scenario. After the last ATSS scenario, the experimenter re-entered the laboratory room and collected a second BAC reading approximately 15min after the initial BAC reading. Participants were then given a full process debriefing that explained the full nature of the study. PLA participants were allowed to leave the laboratory immediately after debriefing. ALC participants remained in the lab until BACs were at or below .03 mg/cL, and after a second debriefing. ATSS measures. Undergraduate research assistants transcribed each participant’s digital voice file to a coding sheet. Two blind-to-condition raters (advanced undergraduate psychology majors), who received 30 hr of training according to an authordeveloped ATSS coding manual, read transcriptions of participants’ articulated thoughts while listening to their corresponding audiotape and independently rated each segment. Intraclass correlation coefficients (rIC) were computed to assess inter-rater agreement. Raters assessed the presence of aggressive verbalizations by tallying the frequency of participants’ statements that corresponded to the following three categories: (1) verbal aggression (rIC 5 .96), recorded when a participant insulted or otherwise demeaned a character; (2) physical aggression (rIC 5 .97) was coded when a participant expressed a desire to become physically aggressive (e.g., behaviors such as hitting or shoving, or any reference to a physical altercation); and (3) belligerence (rIC 5 .76), defined as a statement attempting to initiate an altercation by provoking, threatening, or challenging a character (‘‘Yeah, that’s what I said, what are you gonna do about it?’’).
RESULTS
Manipulation Checks To examine the effects of beverage administration, BAC levels subsequent to the postabsorption period and immediately after the ATSS procedure (15 min after the first BAC reading) were examined (see Table I). For participants in the ALC group, the mixed analysis of variance indicated a significant main effect for time, F (1, 38) 5 7.80, Po.01, with BAC readings increasing from pre- to post-ATSS. The gender main effect was not significant, F (1, 38) 5 0.66, P 5 .42, nor was the gender by time Aggr. Behav.
TABLE I. Blood Alcohol Concentrations, Perceived Drunkenness, and Anger Experience During ATSS ATSS scenario
Blood alcohol concentration ALC PLA Perceived drunkenness ALC PLA Anger experience ALC PLA
Pre-ATSS
Postneutral
Postanger
M (SD)
M (SD)
M (SD)
0.078 (0.019) 0.020 (0.015)
0.085 (0.015) 0.003 (0.004)
5.31 (1.61) 3.10 (1.29) 1.29 (0.63) 1.20 (0.38)
1.60 (0.94) 3.42 (2.00) 1.54 (0.95) 3.30 (2.24)
Note. ALC, alcohol condition; PLA, active-placebo condition; ATSS, articulated thoughts in simulated situations.
interaction effect, F ( 1, 38) 5 0.04, P 5 .84. For participants in the PLA condition, who received a minimal amount of alcohol, there was a significant effect of time, F (1, 28) 5 34.67, Po.001, with BACs decreasing from pre- to post-ATSS. Nonsignificant effects were found for the gender main effect, F (1, 28) 5 0.26, P 5 .61, and the gender by time interaction, F (1, 28) 5 0.84, P 5 .37. Participants’ ratings of perceived drunkenness indicated that ALC participants experienced a moderate level of intoxication, whereas PLA participants reported a minimal level of subjective intoxication. Subsequent analyses indicated that these differences in perceived drunkenness were unrelated to the primary-dependent measures.4 Thus, the alcohol manipulation was successful in eliciting desired BAC levels and in presenting ATSS materials during the ascending limb of the BAC curve. The data indicated that the ATSS procedure significantly increased anger-related affect. Results of a 2 (ALC, PLA) Â 2 (MRS ratings pre–postATSS) mixed analysis of covariance indicated a significant increase in anger ratings across the ATSS procedure, F (1, 74) 5 70.90, Po.001. These ratings were not significantly affected by beverage condition, F (1, 74) 5 0.20, P 5 .66, or gender,
4
To examine whether differential ratings of subjective intoxication had a meaningful impact on primary outcome measures, perceived drunkenness was correlated with ATSS aggressive verbalization scores among ALC and PLA participants, controlling for the effects of actual BAC levels during ATSS. Results indicated no significant relationship between perceived drunkenness and ATSS aggressive verbalizations (rp 5 .007, P 5 .96).
Aggressivity and Alcohol Intoxication
F (1, 74) 5 0.31, P 5 .58. All interaction terms were nonsignificant (Table II).
Gender Differences on ATSS Measures We conducted a multivariate analysis of variance examining the effects of gender on the individual ATSS outcomes used to calculate the aggregate ATSS aggressive verbalization-dependent measure. The multivariate analysis of variance did not indicate an omnibus effect for gender on ATSS verbal aggression, physical aggression, and belligerence outcomes, F (3, 64), 5 0.87, P 5 .46; therefore, results of univariate tests will not be examined further.
Predicting Anger Scenario Aggressive Verbalizations To examine the effects of beverage condition assignment, aggressivity, and gender on ATSS anger scenario aggressive verbalizations, hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used (see footnote 4). The number of aggressive verbalizations made by participants in this study is comparable to other studies that utilized the ATSS methodology to assess aggression [e.g., Barbour et al., 1998; Eckhardt et al., 2002]. Coding for the beverage group was ALC 5 1, PLA 5 À1, and the gender variable was coded as male 5 1, female 5 À1; aggressivity was entered as a continuous variable centered on its mean. Interaction terms were calculated using crossproducts of the above first-order variables, and unstandardized regression coefficients were examined. The gender variable was entered in the first step, followed by aggressivity and beverage condition in the second step; two- and three-way interaction terms were entered in step three.
TABLE II. Aggressive Articulations During ATSS by Beverage Condition and Gender ATSS scenario
ALC Male Female PLA Male Female
Neutral
Anger
M (SD)
M (SD)
.00 (.00) .00 (.00)
2.27 (3.46) 1.24 (2.18)
.00 (.00) .00 (.00)
0.85 (1.50) 0.81 (1.21)
Note. ALC, alcohol beverage condition; PLA, placebo beverage condition; ATSS, articulated thoughts in simulated situations paradigm. N 5 70.
433
As can be seen in Table III, the regression equation for the first step was not significant, R2 5 .02, F (1, 64) 5 1.44, P 5 .23. The second step was significant, DR2 5 .15, F (3, 64) 5 4.29, Po.01, with ALC group assignment, and higher aggressivity predictive of higher ATSS aggressive verbalizations. The third step was also significant, DR2 5 .08, F ( 7, 60) 5 2.84, Po.02. The interaction between beverage condition and aggressivity was significant, with assignment to the ALC condition interacting with higher aggressivity scores to predict higher levels of ATSS aggressive verbalizations. This interaction was interpreted by plotting the effect (see Fig. 1) to determine if the slopes of the simple regression lines (À1 SD below and 11 SD above the aggressivity mean) were significantly different from zero [Cohen et al., 2003]. Gender did not significantly interact with beverage condition or aggressivity, and the three-way interaction between gender, beverage condition, and aggressivity was nonsignificant.
DISCUSSION
Researchers have long suggested that alcohol intoxication is neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause of aggressive behavior [Bushman and Cooper, 1990; Ito et al., 1996], and that alcohol potentiates aggressive responding among individuals at dispositional or contextual risk for engaging in such a behavior [e.g., Pernanen, 1991]. Subsequent research examined aggressivity as one such risk factor and the resulting data indicated that alcohol increased TAP-assessed aggression primarily among highaggressivity participants [Bailey and Taylor, 1991; Giancola, 2002a; Moeller et al., 1998]. Using a verbalized aggression assessment paradigm, we found that participants who were randomly assigned to receive an alcoholic beverage and who scored high in aggressivity articulated approximately eight times more aggressive verbalizations relative to lowaggressivity participants regardless of beverage condition, and approximately three times more aggressive verbalizations relative to high-aggressivity participants given a placebo. Results did not significantly vary as a function of participant gender. The present results are congruent with previous laboratory research using an alcohol challenge, and suggest that the relationship between alcohol consumption and aggressive behavior is moderated by dispositional aggressivity. It is worth noting that the similarity between the present results and findings Aggr. Behav.
434 Eckhardt and Crane TABLE III. Predicting ATSS Aggressive Verbalizations From Beverage Condition, Aggressivity, and Gender b
b
Variable Step 1: Gender Step 2: Main effects Beverage contrast Aggressivity Step 3: Interactions Beverage con.  aggressivity Beverage con.  gender Aggressivity  gender Beverage con.  gender  aggressivity
.59 .16
.24 .36
.11 .10 À.28 .06
.24 .04 À.06 .12
t
Adj. R2
DR2
.02 .15
.02 .13 ÃÃ
.16
.08 Ã
2.07 Ã 2.93 ÃÃ 1.99 0.34 À0.52 1.03
Ã
Note. ATSS, articulated thoughts in simulated situations; b, unstandardized coefficient; b, standardized coefficient. *Po.05, **Po.01. 5 4.5 s n o i t a z i l a b r e
V e v i s s e r g g A
4 3.5 3
Placebo
2.5
Alcohol
2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Low
High Aggressivity
Fig. 1. Effects of beverage condition (alcohol vs. placebo) and aggressivity (high vs. low) on frequency of ATSS anger scenario aggressive verbalizations. ATSS, articulated thoughts in simulated situations.
from earlier research in this area [e.g., Giancola, 2002a] exists despite usage of an aggressive assessment paradigm not previously implemented, the ATSS paradigm [Davison et al., 1983]. Similar to the TAP, the ATSS allows for a high degree of experimental control over key aspects of the assessment situation, as researchers can specify the content and timing of aggression-eliciting interpersonal conflicts [Davison et al., 1997; Eckhardt, 2007]. However, whereas the TAP uses an easily assessed proxy measure for aggression (frequency and intensity of shock administration), the main ATSS aggression measure relies upon participants’ spontaneous verbalizations of aggressive content. Future research is needed to establish the degree to which the two measures converge as proxy measures of the broader construct of aggressive behavior. The findings regarding the importance of the aggressivity variable are perhaps unsurprising given that an individual’s earlier aggression is a substantial determinant of one’s vulnerability to future aggressive behavior [Capaldi and Clark, 1998; Ehrensaft et al., 2004; Fals-Stewart et al., 2005]. A key issue at Aggr. Behav.
this juncture is to more precisely investigate the specific facets of dispositional aggressivity that interact with alcohol use to increase one’s risk of aggressive behavior. Researchers have identified core personality features that serve as vulnerability factors for persistent antisocial behavior [Miller and Lynam, 2001], and an amalgam of aggressioneliciting cognitive and affective individual difference factors have been proposed that additively increase the likelihood of specific episodes of aggressive behavior [Beck, 1999; Berkowitz, 1993; Bettencourt et al., 2006]. However, the relation among these factors and chronic aggression has received limited empirical attention in the context of alcohol intoxication. Data indicate that poor executive functioning may moderate the alcohol–aggression relationship [Giancola, 2004], and that deficits in social information processing may mediate this association [Ogle and Miller, 2004; Sayette, 1993]. It is also likely that these alcohol-affected cognitive processes operate at an automatic or implicit level [Ostafin and Palfai, 2006]. Regarding affective components of aggressivity, trait anger appears to moderate the association between alcohol intoxication and laboratory aggression among aggression-prone [Eckhardt, 2007] and college student [Giancola, 2002b] samples, and Giancola et al. [2003] have suggested that these effects may be accounted for by the behavioral activation components of trait anger. Thus, researchers must continue to examine contextual variables that focus on how, as opposed to whether, aggressivity interacts with alcohol intoxication to increase violence risk. We did not find a significant moderation effect for gender. Earlier research indicates that alcohol appears to be more strongly predictive of aggressive behavior using the TAP for males than for females [e.g., Giancola, 2002b; Giancola et al., 2005]. However, in keeping with the notion of aggression
Aggressivity and Alcohol Intoxication
vulnerability, earlier research has also suggested that alcohol may increase aggression for both men and women predisposed toward aggressive behavior [Giancola, 2002a; Gussler-Bukhardt and Giancola, 2005]. Thus, for individuals with a lower threshold to act aggressively, alcohol may operate consistently to elicit aggressive responding regardless of perpetrator gender; among those with greater inhibitions against aggression (i.e., lower aggressivity), alcoholrelated gender differences may be more pronounced. However, it is also possible that the lack of gender differences observed in this study may reflect important differences between the TAP and ATSS aggression assessment paradigms. TAP aggression is a measure of direct behavioral retaliation, whereas ATSS aggression involves a less direct response that is verbal in nature. Indeed, as earlier research suggests that alcohol may serve as a stronger elicitor of verbal aggression for females than males [e.g., Rohsenow and Bachorowski, 1984], the gender similarity in aggressive verbalizations observed in this study may therefore be owing to the parameters of the ATSS task. Additional research is needed to directly assess the construct-level congruence of these two methods of assessing aggressive responding. This study is not without its limitations. First, our sample was relatively small and drawn from a low-risk college student population. These data may not be generalizable to more clinically relevant, high-risk samples. Second, trait aggressivity was assessed in a relatively simplistic manner using a nine-item, paper-and-pencil measure. Although this method replicates other researchers’ operationalization of the aggressivity construct [e.g., Giancola, 2002a], it is nevertheless a limited method to assess a rather complex construct (dispositional tendencies to engage in aggressive behavior). Finally, on a theoretical level, although this study used the ATSS procedure as a proxy for aggressive behavior, it is likely that the parameters of this task affected the relationships observed. Determining whether and to what extent the ATSS and TAP paradigms converge in their ability to assess the broader construct of aggressive behavior would be an important future contribution to the literature. Despite these limitations, the present results converge with a recent conclusion by Giancola [2002a]: ‘‘alcohol does indeed have very powerful effects on aggression, but only for persons predisposed toward such behavior’’ (p. 705, italics original). Specifically, alcohol’s ability to potentiate aggression appears to primarily operate on those individuals with preexisting personality characteristics
435
that favor aggressive responding. The next step will be to determine the facets of aggressivity that account for this risk, and to determine how aggressivity dynamically relates to other risk factors to predict intoxicated aggression among high-risk populations [e.g., Fals-Stewart et al., 2005; Mulvey et al., 2006]. Such advances will enrich emerging etiological models of interpersonal aggression, and enhance efforts to prevent the occurrence of such behaviors. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported in part by a grant from the Alcoholic Beverage Medical Research Foundation awarded to the first author. The authors offer their gratitude to the following individuals: Rene Jamison, Gavin Brown, Sara Lowery, Ashley Hollweg, Summer Sullivan, Collin Hagood, West Hudgins, Paige Corbly, and Sara Goodrich.
REFERENCES Anderson C, Bushman B. 2002. Human aggression. Annu Rev Psychol 53:27–51. Bailey DS, Taylor SP. 1991. Effects of alcohol and aggressive disposition on human physical aggression. J Res Pers 25:334–342. Baillargeon RH, Tremblay RE, Willms D. 2004. Gender differences in the prevalence of physically aggressive behaviors in the Canadian population of 2- and 3-year-old children. In: Pepler D, Madsen K, Levene K, Webster C (eds). The Development and Treatment of Girlhood Aggression, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp 55–74. Barbour K, Eckhardt C, Davison G, Kassinove H. 1998. The experience and expression of anger in maritally violent and nonviolent men. Behav Ther 29:173–191. Beck AT. 1999. Prisoners of hate: The cognitive basis of anger, hostility, and violence. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Berkowitz L. 1993. Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company. Bettencourt AA, Kernahan C. 1997. A metaanalysis of aggression in the presence of violent cues: effects of gender differences and aversive provocations. Aggressive Behav 23:447–456. Bettencourt BA, Talley A, Benjamin AJ, Valentine J. 2006. Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull 132:751–777. Bushman BJ, Cooper HM. 1990. Effects of alcohol on human aggression: an integrative research review. Psychol Bull 107:1–14. Buss AH, Perry M. 1992. The Aggression Questionnaire. J Pers Soc Psychol 63:452–459. Capaldi D, Clark S. 1998. Prospective family predictors of aggression toward female partners for at-risk young men. Dev Psychol 34:1175–1188. Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS. 2003. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd edition, Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Curtin JJ, Lang AR, Patrick CJ, Stritzke WGK. 1998. Alcohol and fear-potentiated startle: the role of competing cognitive demands in the stress-reducing effect of intoxication. J Abnorm Psychol 107:547–557. Aggr. Behav.
436 Eckhardt and Crane Davison GC, Robins C, Johnson MK. 1983. Articulated thoughts during simulated situations: A paradigm for studying cognition in emotion and behavior. Cogn Ther Res 7:17–39. Davison GC, Vogel R, Coffman S. 1997. Think-aloud approaches to cognitive assessment and the articulated thoughts in simulated situations paradigm. J Consult Clin Psychol 65:950–958. Deffenbacher JL, Oetting ER, Thwaites GA, Lynch RS, Baker DA, Stark RS, Thacker S, Eiswerth-Cox L. 1996. State–Trait Anger Theory and the utility of the Trait Anger Scale. J Couns Psychol 43:131–148. DiLiberto L, Katz RC, Beauchamp KL, Howells GN. 2002. Using Articulated Thoughts in Simulated Situations to assess cognitive activity in aggressive and nonaggressive adolescents. J Child Fam Stud 11:179–189. Eckhardt CI. 2007. Effects of alcohol intoxication on anger experience and expression among partner assaultive men. J Consult Clin Psychol 75:61–71. Eckhardt CI, Barbour KA, Davison GC. 1998. Articulated irrational thoughts in maritally violent and nonviolent men during anger arousal. J Consult Clin Psychol 66:259–269. Eckhardt CI, Jamison TR, Watts K. 2002. Experience and expression of anger among male perpetrators of dating violence. J Interpers Violence 17:1102–1114. Ehrensaft MK, Moffitt T, Caspi A. 2004. Clinically abusive relationships and their developmental antecedents in an unselected birth cohort. J Abnorm Psychol 113:258–271. Fals-Stewart W, Golden J, Schumacher J. 2003. Intimate partner violence and substance use: A longitudinal day-to-day examination. Addict Behav 28:1555–1574. Fals-Stewart W, Leonard K, Birchler GR. 2005. The occurrence of male-to-female intimate partner violence on days of men’s drinking: The moderating effects of antisocial personality disorder. J Consult Clin Psychol 73:239–248. Giancola P. 2002a. Alcohol-related aggression in men and women: The influence of dispositional aggressivity. J Stud Alcohol 63:696–708. Giancola P. 2002b. Alcohol-related aggression during the college years: Theories, risk factors, and policy implications. J Stud Alcohol 14:129–139. Giancola P. 2004. Executive functioning and alcohol-related aggression. J Abnorm Psychol 113:541–555. Giancola P, Chermack S. 1996. Construct validity of laboratory aggression paradigms: A response to Tedeschi and Quigley. Aggression Violent Behav 3:237–253. Giancola P, Zeichner A. 1997. The biphasic effects of alcohol on human physical aggression. J Abnorm Psychol 106:598–607. Giancola P, Saucier D, Burkhardt N. 2003. The effects of affective, behavioral, and cognitive components of trait anger on the alcohol–aggression relation. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 27:1944–1954. Giancola P, Godlaski AJ, Parrott DJ. 2005. ‘‘So I can’t blame the booze?’’: Dispositional aggressivity negates the moderating effects of expectancies on alcohol-related aggression. J Stud Alcohol 66:815–824. Gussler-Bukhardt NL, Giancola PR. 2005. A further examination of gender differences in alcohol related aggression. J Stud Alcohol 66:413–422. Ito TA, Miller N, Pollock VE. 1996. Alcohol and aggression: A meta-analysis on the moderating effects of inhibitory cues,
Aggr. Behav.
triggering events, and self-focused attention. Psychol Bull 120: 60–82. Leonard K, Roberts L. 1998. The effects of alcohol on the marital interactions of aggressive and nonaggressive husbands and their wives. J Abnorm Psychol 107:602–615. Miller JD, Lynam DR. 2001. Structural models of personality and their relation to antisocial behavior: A meta-analytic review. Criminology 39:756–792. Moeller FG, Dougherty DM. 2001. Antisocial personality disorder, alcohol, and aggression. Alcohol Res Health 25:5–11. Moeller FG, Dougherty DM, Lane SD, Steinberg JL, Cherek DR. 1998. Antisocial personality disorder and alcohol-induced aggression. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 22:1898–1902. Mulvey E, Odgers C, Skeem J, Gardner W, Schubert C, Lidz C. 2006. Substance use and community violence: A test of the relation at the daily level. J Consult Clin Psychol 74: 743–754. Ogle R, Miller W. 2004. The effects of alcohol intoxication and gender on the social information processing of hostile provocations involving male and female provocateurs. J Stud Alcohol 65:54–62. Ostafin BD, Palfai TP. 2006. Compelled to consume: the implicit association test and automatic alcohol motivation. Psychol Addict Behav 20:322–327. Parrott DJ, Giancola P. 2004. A further examination of the relation between trait anger and alcohol-related aggression: The role of anger control. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 28:855–864. Parrott DJ, Giancola PR. 2007. Addressing the ‘criterion problem’ in the assessment of aggressive behavior: Development of a new taxonomic system. Aggression Violent Behav 12:280–299. Pernanen K. 1991. Alcohol in Human Violence, New York: Guilford Press. Pihl R, Lau M, Assaad J-M. 1997. Aggressive disposition, alcohol, and aggression. Aggressive Behav 23:11–18. Rohsenow D, Bachorowski J. 1984. Effects of alcohol and expectancies on verbal aggression in men and women. J Abnorm Psychol 93:418–433. Sayette MA. 1993. An appraisal-disruption model of alcohol’s effects on stress responses in social drinkers. Psychol Bull 114: 459–476. Schmutte GT, Leonard KE, Taylor SP. 1979. Alcohol and expectations of attack. Psychol Rep 45:163–167. Taylor S. 1967. Aggressive behavior and physiological arousal as a function of provocation and the tendency to inhibit aggression. J Pers 35:297–310. Taylor SP, Chermack ST. 1993. Alcohol, drugs and human physical aggression. J Stud Alcohol 11:78–88. Tedeschi JT, Quigley BM. 1996. Limitations of laboratory paradigms for studying aggression. Aggression Violent Behav 1:162–177. Tedeschi JT, Quigley BM. 2000. A further comment on the construct validity of laboratory aggression paradigms: a response to Giancola and Chermack. Aggression Violent Behav 5: 127–136. Watson D, Clark L. 1992. Affects separable and inseparable: the hierarchical arrangement of negative affects. J Pers Soc Psychol 62:489–505. Zeichner A, Giancola P, Allen J. 1995. Effects of hostility on alcohol stress response dampening. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 19:977–983.
