AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR Volume 16, pages 33-39

Dimensions of Aggression: A Replication With Offenders Anne Campbell, Bernard Gorman, and Steven Muncer

School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey (A. C., S. M.); Department of Psychology, Nassau Community College, SUNV, Garden City (13. G., S. M.); and Department of Psychology, Hofstra University, Hempstead (8. G.), New York

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In a previous study (Muncer et al.: Aggressive Behavior 12327-336,1986) real-life aggres- sive situations nominated by undergraduate subjects were used in a sorting task to uncover the judgmental dimensions underlying discriminations between episodes. Three dimen- sions emerged: physical-verbal form, acquainted-unacquainted combatants, and an equity or fairness dimension. To examine the generality of this schema, offenders on proba- tion were asked to perform the same task. A nearly identical dimensional structure emerged from multidimensional scaling; cosines between corresponding dimensions in the two studies were all in excess of .92. These results suggest that judgments of form, degree of relationship, and morality generalize to the criminal population at least when the episodes to be judged are held constant. The results are discussed in terms of under- lying cognitive schema and episode “scripts.”

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Key words: taxonomies, physical-verbal, acquainted-unacquainted, equity, cognitive schema

INTRODUCTION The study of human aggression is frequently criticized as lacking a clear conceptual

framework which is a necessary condition for appropriate operationalization. Most authors agree on the general requirements of harmful intent, other-directedness, and an unwill- ing victim [Zillman, 19791. Yet within these constraints an enormous variety of aggres- sive behaviors remains. It is doubtful if a single theory could prove adequate to the diversity of actions that are captured by the term “aggression.” For this reason typolo- gies of aggression have been proposed by psychologists based upon motive and form [see Campbell et al., 19851, by criminal justicians in terms of legal offense [Megargee, 19821, and by criminologists in terms of seriousness [Gottfredson et al., 19801. What- ever the discipline, the schemas have arisen from academics and have been used to classify a universe of acts selected by these academics rather than laypersons. Unless

Received for publication March 30, 1989; accepted November 10, 1989. Address reprint requests to Anne Campbell, School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, 15 Washington Street, Newark, NJ 07102.

0 1990 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

34 Cumpbell et ul.

the everyday experience of the person in the street is allowed to enter the system at some point, we run the risk of generating and sustaining a schema which has limited utility for the real world.

In a previous study [Muncer et al., 19861 we asked undergraduate students to nominate aggressive incidents in which they had been involved or which they had witnessed at first hand. Subjects then sorted a representative group of 24 aggressive situations into as many categories as they needed to maximize within-group homogeneity and separate diverse inci- dents. These data were subjected to an IDSORT individual differences multidimensional scaling program [Takane, 19831 which produced three clearly interpretable dimensions: verbal-physical, acquainted-unacquainted combatants, and equity-victimization. In order to examine the generality of the results, the present study employed subjects selected from the files of a metropolitan probation department. The sample is as heterogeneous as possi- ble including violent and property offenders, perpetrators and victims, men and women.

The study of cognitive schemas for aggression is important in two senses. Schemas may reflect formal topological properties of situations and their generality may reflect the “natural” cues to which we attend in making sense of them. In short, we may be tapping the templates which are commonly used to interpret the world and in this sense the present work shares much with the study of templates in memory and prototypes in person perception [Cantor and Mischel , 1979; Rosch and Mervis, 1975; Tulving, 19621. We should expect to find that different populations share a similar representation of aggres- sive episodes as the schemas reflect the most efficient and economical dimensions for dis- crimination. (In the same way, we would not be surprised to find that both criminals and non-criminals assign eagles and robins to the category of ‘‘bird.”)

Situational schemas may also provide specific guides to action. For example, Forgas [ 1982:90] states “episode representations also have a direct and identifiable influence on actual social behavior” because they determine the scripts, action plans, or social episodes which can take place. In short, the way in which situations are “read” affects the course of behavior within them. This being the case, we should expect to find important differences between different cultural groups in the way in which they per- ceive their similarities and differences.

Forgas [ 19861 correlated a number of subject variables with perception of aggres- sive scenarios and found demographic factors (sex and age) to be more closely associ- ated with differential perception than were personality factors. This would suggest that in terms of aggressive episodes situational perception is relatively robust, showing lit- tle impact of personality-at least as measured by paper-and-pencil tests. In judging aggressive episodes, however, it is reasonable to expect that criminality would have a measurable impact, particularly criminality of a sufficiently serious degree as to be processed through the criminal justice system. Indeed, a substantial body of literature suggests that criminals are notable for the way in which they interpret settings and events in terms of criminal opportunity [Campbell and Gibbs, 1986; Clarke and Cornish, 1985; Toch, 19841. In the present study, we examine differences between non-criminals and criminals as well as differences within offense type, age, and sex.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Subjects

The subjects of this study were all receiving counseling from the New York City Department of Probation. Forty-nine subjects took part (39 males and 10 females). Twelve of the subjects were victims of family violence and were attending group meet-

Dimensions of Aggression 35

ings together with their spouses. The remaining subjects were on probation, having been convicted of domestic violence (N = 8) including drug-related and violent crime (N := 21) or property crime (N = 8).

Instrument The 24 aggressive incidents (see Table I) originally selected from a pool nominated

by undergraduate community college students were used in this study [see Muncer et al., 19861. Each scenario was presented on a separate file card.

Procedure Each subject was presented with the pack of 24 cards, several rubber bands, slips of

paper, and a pencil. Instructions modified from Clayton and Jackson [ 19641 were used and subjects were instructed to sort the situations into groups that appeared “most nat- ural, most logical and most comfortable” to them. Subjects were told that there was no single correct way to sort the situations and that they were to place the same situation in no more than one group. In addition, subjects were asked to supply reasons for each of their situational groupings by writing an explanation on a slip of paper. This piece of paper was attached to each group and bound together with a rubber band.

RESULTS

As in the Muncer et al. study, Takane’s [ 19831 IDSORT individual differences mul- tidimensional scaling program was used to obtain mappings of the aggressive stimuli. In this algorithm, each of the 49 subjects’ sortings are converted into intersituational similarity indices by a simple rule: situation I and situation J are considered similar to the degree to which subjects place them in the same clusters. Each subject’s similarity matrix was then used to form a pooled matrix which was then decomposed into a set of common, underlying dimensions and stimulus loadings for all subjects. As in Carroll and Chang’s [ 19701 INDSCAL and Takane et al.’s [ 19771 ALSCAL methods, this pro- gram assessed individual differences in sortings and structural perceptions by comput- ing estimates of the weights that each subject employed on the common dimensions.

Four IDSORT solutions, ranging from a two-dimensional to five-dimensional solu- tion, were computed. Of these, the three-dimensional solution was retained as it pro- vided a parsimonious, meaningful dimensional loading pattern that was nearly identical to that found in a college student sample by Muncer et al. [1986]. Table I presents the loadings in the common space.

Dimension I was a bipolar dimension with the larger positive loadings indicating considerable amounts of physical aggression; the larger negative loadings indicating verbal hostility; and the intermediate-sized loadings indicating mixtures of both. As in the Muncer et al. [1986] study, this dimension was labeled “Physical vs. verbal aggression. ”

Dimension I1 contained positive loadings from items in which strangers interacted aggressively and large negative loadings from items in which familiar persons interacted. This dimension was labeled ‘‘Acquainted vs. unacquainted combatants.’ ’

Dimension 111 had high negative loadings from situations such as C and P in which both teams provoked the aggressive incidents and both had an equal chance of win- ning. However, the higher positive loadings came from situations such as E, J , K, and

36 Campbell et al.

TABLE I. Dimensional Loadings of 24 Aggressive Episodes

Loading on dimension Situation I I1 I11

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 0 P Q R S T U V W x

Fight over flirting Fight with drunken driver Baseball teams fight Gays beaten at bar Attempted rape and boyfriend rescue Girls fight over boyfriends Man “steals” parking space Drunken fight at dance club Argument with boss over vacation Little girl bruised by mother Stranger mugs girl, girl rescued Fight at rock concert over seat Boyfriend and girlfriend break up Cashier and customer argue Sister takes sister’s jeans Hockey teams fight Brothers argue about party Couple fights at bar Bum fights with bartender Storeowner fires employee Babysitter blamed for friends Girl fights over boyfriend Gold chain ripped from neck

0.08 0.24 0.22 0.23 0.18 0.12

-0.21 0. I9

-0.34 -0.01

0.11 0.16 0.09

-0.28 -0.28

0.20 - 0.30

0.02 0.23

-0.36 -0.24

0.10 -0.05

- 0.42 0. I7 0.17 0.15 0.13

- 0.40 0.08 0. I3 0.05 0.06 0.18 0.14

-0.39 0.05 0.08 0. I8 0.08

-0.35 0. I5 0.09 0.04

-0.34 0.09

0.05 0.22

-0.67 0.10 0.21

-0.06 0.07 0.17

0.07 0. I5 0.09

- 0.03 - 0.08

0.03 -0.56 - 0.03

0.05 0.20

-0.03 0.03

-0.01 0.12

-0.07

. . Man kicks vending machine -0.11 -0. I3 0.04

W in which there were unwilling victims, or, as in situations B and S, participants who were intoxicated and not fully aware of the implications of the incident. This dimen- sion could be called “Equity vs. victimization” or, perhaps, “Intentional vs. uninten- tional provocation. ’ ’

As was mentioned earlier, the three-dimensional solution appeared to be similar to that found by Muncer et al. [1986]. Hurley and Cattell’s [1962] Procrustes factor rota- tion method was used in order to quantify the closeness of the two solutions. In this method, one loading matrix serves as a “target” matrix and another loading matrix, containing the same number of stimuli, is rotated toward the target matrix by means of a least-squares fitting procedure. A factor transformation matrix containing direction cosines is formed. Each cosine can be interpreted as a correlation coefficient between a factor or dimension pair. Evidence of good fit of one matrix to another is obtained when the cosines between dimensions that were predicted to be similar are high and cosines of dimensions predicted to be dissimilar are low. In the present case, in which the present loadings were used as the target and the 1986 study’s loadings were rotated toward the target, the dimensional fit was quite high. The cosine between the Dimen- sion I loadings of both studies was .98; Dimension I1 had a cosine of .99; and Dimen- sion I11 had a cosine of .92. The highest cosine between non-identical dimensions was .36, which was found between Dimensions I1 and 111. Thus the fit of the first two dimen- sions of both studies could be said to be excellent and the fit of the third dimension could be said to be very good.

The IDSORT algorithm provides dimensional weights for each subject. In order to

Dimensions of Aggression 37

investigate whether the subjects in the four groups of this study displayed differential utilization of the three IDSORT dimensions, the data set was subjected to a series of multiple discriminant analyses and multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA). Thus, if the groups did hold differing perceptions of the aggressive incidents, the centroids of the groups in the multidimensional subject weight space should be significantly differ- ent. The first discriminant analysis attempted to contrast the four groups: Group I (drug- related and violent offenders), Group 2 (family violence victims), Group 3 (family violence offenders), and Group 4 (property offenders). The overall Wilks’ lambda was .80 ( x 2 = 9.42, P = .39) and indicated that the four groups did not have significantly different weightings of the three dimensions.

A second discriminant analysis contrasted the dimension weights supplied by I3 juve- nile subjects with those supplied by 36 adult subjects. The resulting Wilks’ lambda was .98 ( x 2 = .863, P = .83) and failed to indicate any significant differences in dimension weightings that could be attributed to age.

A third discriminant function analysis contrasted the dimension weights of the 39 males in the study with those obtained from 10 females. An overall Wilks’ lambda of .72 was found (x2 = 14.84, P = .002), which indicated that there were some sex differences in the dimension weightings of male and female subjects. By examining the univariate F-ratios and discriminant structure coefficients for each dimension, it was Sound that the only significant contributor to the discriminant function was Dimen- sion 111. Thus, it appeared that the male subjects were more likely to use judgments of aggression that were based on considerations of equity and intentionality than were the female subjects.

In order to explore whether there would be any significant interactions of group mem- bership and gender on the dimension weightings, the discriminant weights were sub- jected to a multivariate analysis of variance. As in the previous discriminant analyses, a significant sex effect was found (Wilks’ lambda = .64, F(3.27) = 4.79, P = .008) but no significant effects for group membership or for a group membership by sex inter- action were obtained.

DISCUSSION

Our analysis indicates that the underlying schema of aggression used by convicted offenders shows a remarkable degree of similarity to that used by non-criminal under- graduate students. In addition, there were no significant effects of offense type. Taken together, these data suggest that the underlying dimensions are generalizable across relatively diverse populations and may be the fundamental judgmental dimensions that structure our interpretation of violence. As we have noted previously [Muncer et al., 19861, there is a broad correspondence between the present dimensions and those uncov- ered by Forgas et al. [1980] in a related study using student subjects and a different set of aggressive episodes. Although their analysis did not produce a verbal-physical dimen- sion, the second and fourth dimensions, which they label “justifiability” and “control,” seem to correspond closely to our present dimension of equity-victimization. Their third dimension (emotional provocation), like our second dimension, receives high loadings from situations in which the combatants know one another and low loadings from epi- sodes involving strangers. These two dimensions relate to moral and relational con- cerns respectively.

38 Campbell et al.

Morality appears to be a fundamental aspect of our spontaneous judgments of vio- lence. We abhor violence which involves elements of bullying-attacks where the vic- tim is unprepared, unable to defend himself, and outnumbered. However outmoded the “fair fight” may be in the real world, it clearly remains salient to people’s judgment about aggression [Toch, 19841. In addition, laypersons recognize relational issues as critical in their judgment. They distinguish between close relationships in which ten- sions develop that are sometimes translated into violence (between husband and wife, parent and child) and aggression between strangers where the violence results not from long-standing interpersonal relations but from the specific nature of the conflict inci- dent itself. Cases of child abuse by parents seem to strike a particular nerve in the gen- eral public since they combine the two most inflammatory ingredients of a defenseless victim and a smoldering interpersonal hostility.

The present study indicates that the dimensional structure uncovered in our original study was not subject-dependent. Taken together with Forgas et al.’s [ 19801 results we can suggest that it is also not stimuli-dependent. However, further examination of both these issues is warranted. We need to examine more diverse subject populations and to include different aggressive incidents. We strongly maintain, however, that the inci- dents used should be drawn from laypersons, rather than generated by academics, if they are to have ecological validity and provide meaningful social episodes relevant to the lives of the subjects. Further examination can distinguish between the extent to which the dimensions are driven by the topological features of the incidents chosen rather than constituting the underlying schemas used by subjects for aggressive events. In short, we need to know if subjects carry in their heads a pre-formed schematic map for classifying incidents or whether such maps are constructed anew for each set of stimuli which the subject seeks to discriminate.

Notable in the present study is the significant effect of gender on situational perception. Males relied more on the moral dimension of equity than did females. This result remains enigmatic, but Gilligan’s [ 19821 work on women and moral judgments may be relevant here. She suggests that men focus more abstractly on issues of fairness and justice in arriving at moral decisions while women are more influenced by considerations of interpersonal harmony. On the other hand, the greater involvement of males in violent episodes may cause them to be par- ticularly sensitive to issues of fairness and victimization since they are especially likely to suffer the consequences of breaches of the social rules of fighting [Marsh et al., 19781.

If offenders do read and respond to aggressive scenarios in a different way than the rest of us, this study failed to capture this difference. We did, how- ever, ask subjects to make abstract judgments about already-completed events of which they were not a part. A more direct means of examining the relationship between criminality, situational perception, and action would be to present of- fenders with unfinished conflict situations and ask them to sort them into groups on the basis of what they would do next, such that all scenarios giving rise to similar behaviors would be grouped together. Here, we might expect to uncover differences in perception and action if, indeed, they exist. For the present, we can conclude that the schema they employ for judging the behavior of other people seems little different to the rest of us.

Dimensions of Aggression 39

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Kevin T. Smyley (Commissioner, New York City Department of Probation), Vernon Manley (Assistant Commissioner, Com- munity Affairs and Special Projects), Ellie Ludvigsen-Jennings (Program Manager, Com- munity Affairs and Special Projects), Ken Gallagher (Director of Research), and Harry Dammer (Rutgers University).

REFERENCES

Campbell A, Gibbs J (1986): “Violent Transac- tions.” New York: Basil Blackwell.

Campbell A, Muncer S, Bibel D (1985): Taxono- mies of aggressive behavior: A preliminary report. Aggressive Behavior I 1 :217-222.

Cantor N, Mischel W (1979): Prototypes in person perception. In Berkowitz L (ed): “Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,” Vol. 12. New York: Academic Press, pp 3-5 I .

Carroll JD, Chang JJ (1970): Analysis of indivi- dual differences in multidimensional scaling via N- way generalization of the Eckert-Young decom- position. Psychometrika 35:283-3 19.

Clarket R , Cornish DB (198.5): Modeling offend- ers’ decisions: A framework for research and pol- icy. In Tonry M, Moms N (eds): “Crime and Justice,” Vol. 6. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Clayton MB, Jackson DN (1964): Equivalence range, acquiescence and overgeneralization. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 21:371-381.

Forgas JP (1982): Episode cognition: Internal rep- resentations of interaction routines. In Berkowitz L (ed): “Advances in Experimental Social Psy- chology,” Vol. 1.5. New York: Academic Press, pp 59- 101.

Forgas JP (1986): Cognitive representations of aggressive situations. In Campbell A, Gibbs J (eds): “Violent Transactions.” New York: Basil Blackwell, pp41-58.

Forgas JP, Brown LL, Menyhart J (1980): Dimen- sion of aggression: The perception of aggressive episodes. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 19:215-227.

Gilligan C (1982): “In a Different Voice.” Cam- bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Gottfredson SD, Young KL, Laufer WS (1980): Additivity and interactions in offense seriousness scales. Journal of Research in Crime and Delin- quency 17:26-41.

Hurley JR, Cattell RB (1962): The Procrustes pro- gram: Producing direct rotating to test a hypoth- esized factor structure. Behavioral Science 7: 258-262.

Marsh P, Rosser E, Harre R (1978): “The Rules of Disorder.” London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Megargee E (1982): Psychological determinants and correlates to aggression. In Wolfgang M, Weiner N (eds): “Criminal Violence.” Beverly Hills: Sage, pp81-170.

Muncer S, Gorman B, Campbell A (1986): Sorting out aggression: Dimensional and categorical per- ceptions of aggressive episodes. Aggressive Behavior 12:327-336.

Rosch E, Mervis C (1975): Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7573-605.

Takane Y (1983): IDSORT: An individual differences multidimensional scaling program for sorting data. Journal of Marketing Research 20:447-448.

Takane Y, Young FW, DeLeeuw J (1977): Nonmetric individual differences multidimensional scaling: An alternating least squares method with opti- mal scaling features. Psychometrika 42:7-67.

Toch H (1984): “Violent Men: An Enquiry Into the Psychology of Violence.” Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman.

Tulving E (1962): Subjective organization in the free recall of “unrelated” words. Psychological Review 69:344-354.

Zillman D (1979): “Hostility and Aggression.” Hill- side, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.