University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Alcohol's impact on triggered displaced aggression

(USC Thesis Other)

Alcohol's impact on triggered displaced aggression

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content ALCOHOL’S IMPACT ON TRIGGERED DISPLACED AGGRESSION
by
Fredy Eduardo Aviles
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(PSYCHOLOGY)
August 2002
Copyright 2002 Fredy Eduardo Aviles
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
UMI Number: 1414821
UMI
UMI Microform 1414821
Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
UNIVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7
This thesis, written by
freA'j sJudr^Q Aviles......................
under the direction of h.lS.....Thesis Committee,
and approved by all its members, has been pre
sented to and accepted by the Dean of The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Of MT5 'i a/
Dtaa
Date A u gu st 6 , 2002
THESU5 COMMITTEE /
__
Chairman
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 1
Table of Contents
List of Figures page iii
List of Tables page iv
Abstract page v
Introduction page 1
Method page 12
Results page 18
Discussion page 25
References page 31
Appendix page 36
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
List of Figures
Figure 1. Effect of alcohol and subsequent triggering event on the intensity of
displaced aggression under constant provocation................................................page
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
iv
List of Tables
Table 1. Pilot study................................................................................................page 10
Table 2. Blood alcohol levels for various time intervals.................................... page 19
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
V
Abstract
Examined the interaction between the presence or absence of alcohol intoxication
and a subsequent provocation of minimal intensity. Participants first consumed an
alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverage, were then provoked by a confederate, and then
exposed to a second person that did or did not minimally provoke them. Consistent
with prior research, under no-alcohol conditions, participants minimally provoked
displayed more aggression than those that were not. More importantly, under
alcohol conditions, this difference was significantly greater suggesting that alcohol
can increase aggressive responding. Results were interpreted as consistent with the
inhibition conflict model of intoxicated aggression.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1
Introduction
Alcohol’s Effect on Triggered Displaced Aggression
Intoxication can intensify aggression in both group and interpersonal settings
(e.g., Dunand, 1986; Miller, 1983; Walburg, 1985). Alcohol and violent crime often
occur together in these settings (Murdoch, Phil, & Ross, 1990). Both narrative (Pihl,
1983; Taylor & Leonard, 1983) and meta-analytic reviews of the experimental
literature (Bushman & Cooper, 1990; Hull & Bond, 1986; Steele & Southwick, 1985)
suggest a link between alcohol and aggression. Though theorists have suggested that
both neurological (e.g., Muehlberger, 1956) and cognitively based disinhibition (e.g.,
Steele & Josephs, 1990) may help explain the relation between alcohol and
aggression, the underlying processes are not well understood. Moreover, the inhibitory
processes that these theories refer to are quite distinct. The research reported herein
does not consider neurological disinhibition theories. Instead it focuses on cognitively-
based disinhibition theories as well as important social factors that may contribute to
alcohol-related aggression.
Cognitive Theories of Disinhibition.
Cognitive impairment seems to be the unifying thread that links cognitively-
based disinhibition theories. For instance, Pemanen (1976) suggested that alcohol
narrows attentional focus and thereby reduces the number of cues that can be attended
to. Intoxicated individuals may therefore fail to notice the reasons for someone else’s
behavior. This may then lead them to perceive other’s behavior as arbitrary and
provocative thus making an aggressive response more likely. Taylor and colleagues
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
2
(Taylor & Chermack, 1993; Taylor & Leonard, 1983) also point to a narrowing of
attentional focus in explaining intoxicated aggression. However, they also make two
other assertions. They first assert that alcohol causes individuals to attend to only the
most salient cues in their environment. Secondly, they regard instigation cues as more
salient than inhibitory cues. Since both types of cues can be present in a given
situation, alcohol may intensify aggression partly because intoxicated individuals may
notice and respond to dominant instigation cues while failing to notice less salient
inhibitory cues.
One cognitive model of intoxicated aggression is the anxiolysis-disinhibition
model. Under this model, it has been argued that alcohol increases aggression in
situations where anxiety is normally aroused in the absence of intoxication. Sayette
(1993) argues that when alcohol is consumed prior to exposure to anxiety eliciting
cues, intoxication becomes anxiolytic. He suggests that this occurs because when
intoxication precedes exposure to anxiety eliciting cues, those cues are not appraised
as such. If alcohol is consumed after exposure to such cues, intoxication may not lead
to anxiolysis because appraisal has already taken place. Because anxiety may serve to
suppress aggression in some settings, its prevention may lead to greater aggression
(Gray, 1987; Pihl, Peterson, & Lau, 1993; Taylor & Chermack, 1993; Washbume,
1956).
A second cognitive model of intoxicated aggression is the inhibition conflict
model. Inhibition conflict has been suggested as the mechanism by which alcohol
increases the likelihood of aggressive behavior (Steele & Josephs, 1990; Steele &
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
3
Southwick, 1985). Inhibition conflict occurs when a behavior is instigated by one set
of strong cues and is simultaneously inhibited by another set of strong cues. Inhibition
conflict theorists suggest that alcohol impairs cognitive functioning by limiting the
attentional range of those that consume it. Therefore, someone subjected to a situation
high in inhibition conflict is only able to process the most salient cues. Because
instigating cues are usually more salient and immediate, whereas inhibiting cues often
require the retrieval of personal standards of behavior and cognitively demanding
estimations of future consequences, the intoxicated person typically will be influenced
more by the instigating cue.
Social Factors that Interact With Aggression.
Important social factors can also interact with alcohol to affect the expression
of aggression. One of these factors, provocation, has been defined as the induction of
negative affect. Though heat has been positively linked to aggression (e.g., Anderson,
1989; Griffit, 1970), provocation usually involves human agency. Provocation has
been shown to both instigate and provide justification for aggression (Bettencourt &
Miller, 1996; Ferguson & Rule, 1988). In contrast to provocation, frustration is the
blocking of goal-directed behavior. Like provocation, frustration can also instigate
aggression (Berkowitz, 1989). While most researchers consider frustration as distinct
from provocation, others (e.g., Gustafson, 1993) consider frustration a type of
provocation. Though both frustration and provocation can have non-human situational
causes, human sources can produce twice as much aggression as non-human sources
(meta-analysis: Carlson & Miller, 1988).
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
4
Though conflict and hostility usually increase in incremental steps, thus
following the norm of reciprocity (Goulner, 1960), provocation can also disjunctively
and dramatically escalate aggressive responding. Support for this has been found in
the triggered displaced aggression paradigm, wherein aggression can disjunctively
depart from tit-for-tat behavior (Axelrod, 1984). As stated previously, provoked and
subsequently minimally provoked participants can respond with levels of aggression
that disjunctively depart from the level expected by the additive combination of these
two effects (Pedersen et al., 1999). This feature makes the triggered displaced
aggression paradigm useful for studying the interaction between provocation and
alcohol. Intoxicated and minimal provoked participants may display greater escalated
aggressive responding than sober participants under these same conditions. This
prediction is supported by cognitive disinhibition theories. Another useful feature of
this paradigm is its broad ecological validity. When alcohol is involved in intra-marital
and child abuse, riots, and gang violence, escalated aggressive responding can also
take place.
Triggered Displaced Aggression.
The triggered displaced aggression paradigm is derived from Dollard (1938).
The difference is that within the triggered displaced aggression paradigm the
displacement target emits a minor triggering provocation. The displacement target is
an individual that can conveniently be aggressed against when aggression toward the
initial provocateur is precluded. Retaliation toward the initial provocateur may not be
feasible because he or she may be able to greatly punish any retaliation or may not be
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
5
present. A minor triggering provocation is simply a provocation of very low intensity.
Research has shown that a minor triggering provocation fails to elicit any aggressive
responding in the absence of a Time 1 provocation (Pedersen, Gonzales, & Miller,
1999). The same research has also shown that the same triggering provocation leads to
disjunctively escalated aggressive responding when it is preceded by a Time 1
provocation. Therefore, the features of the triggered displaced aggression paradigm
are an initial provocation and a subsequent low level provocation by a displacement
target.
It is important that the Time 2 triggering provocation be of low intensity within
the triggered displaced aggression paradigm. There are two reasons for this. First, a
low level triggering provocation may or may not be noticed, depending on whether it
is preceded by an initial provocation. Low level triggering provocations will be readily
noted and responded to if they are preceded by a Time 1 provocation. The same
triggering provocation will not be noted or responded to in the absence of this initial
provocation. The Time 1 provocation thus serves an important priming function
(Higgins & King, 1981). Second, a low intensity triggering provocation can be
subjected to attributional distortion regarding its meaning or intent (Duncan, 1976).
An attribution of intentional harm may me made when a low intensity trigger is
preceded by a strong Time 1 provocation. This attribution is not made in the absence
of an initial provocation. In contrast to a low level triggering provocation, a strong
Time 2 triggering provocation will be noticed and responded to similarly irrespective
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
6
of any prior priming. It will also be regarded as intended harm irrespective of an initial
provocation, thus not being subjected to attributional distortion.
Some prior research on triggered displaced aggression has failed to produce the
escalated aggressive responding predicted under a Time 1 provocation by Time 2
triggering provocation interaction (Baron & Bell, 1975; Carver & Glass, 1978; Geen
& Berkowitz, 1967; Worchel 1966). Two of these studies orthogonally manipulated
both provocation and trigger (Baron & Bell, 1975; Worchel 1966) but still failed to
produce the interaction. One explanation is that both studies used strongly provoking
Time 2 provocations that matched or exceeded the intensity of the Time 1
provocation. As argued previously, this assured that: a) it was readily noted an
accurately seen provoking, irrespective of the presence or absence of prior priming
(e.g., Higgins & King, 1981) by an antecedent provocation, and b) that it was not
easily susceptible to distortion regarding its meaning.
Two studies reported in Pedersen et al. (1999), did produce the Time
1 provocation by Time 2 triggering provocation interaction. In addition to using a low-
level triggering event, both these studies also used highly dissimilar procedures to
induce a strong provocation at Time 1, different types of minor triggering actions at
Time 2, and different dependent measures of aggression. Study 1 used direct
behavioral and evaluative measures of harm while study 2 used verbal evaluative
measures and a hypothetical behavioral measure of aggressive antagonism. Both
studies yielded reliable interactions. Manipulation checks confirmed that the Time 2
triggering provocation was negative and aversive. When the Time 2 triggering
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
7
provocation was not preceded by a Time 1 provocation, it produced no more
aggression than the no treatment control condition. When preceded by a Time 1
provocation, however, it produced substantial aggression, as shown by the comparison
with the sum of the independent effects of the initial provocation and the triggering
act. Finally, mediational analyses showed that the negative affect elicited by the Time
2 minor triggering act caused the disjunctive increase in aggression when preceded by
a Time 1 provocation.
Alcohol and Triggered Displaced Aggression.
Past research has demonstrated that intoxication narrows attention (Huntley,
1973; Moskowitz & DePry, 1968; Steele & Southwick, 1985; Taylor & Chermack,
1993) and decreases the number of cues to which a person can attend (Pemanen,
1976). Intoxicated individuals may therefore only be capable of attending to the most
salient cues in the environment (Steele & Southwick, 1985; Taylor & Chermack,
1993; Taylor & Leonard, 1983). The tendency of intoxicated individuals to narrowly
focus on salient cues may partly explain disjunctively escalated aggressive responding
(Pedersen, Aviles, Ito, Miller, & Pollock, 2001). In this section, we discuss some of its
anticipated effects when applied to the triggered displaced aggression paradigm.
Some of the interesting features of the application of alcohol to the triggered
displaced aggression paradigm concern the potential combined effects of alcohol,
provocation, and trigger. It has already been shown that when provoked, intoxicated
individuals are more aggressive than sober individuals (e.g., Hoaken & Pihl, 2000).
This is expected since, as has been previously argued, intoxicated participants may be
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
8
less aware of inhibitory cues and instead focus more on instigation cues. However, no
studies have examined the potential interactive effects of alcohol and a Time 2
triggering provocation under provocation. Pedersen and colleagues (2001) have
theorized that, the likelihood that a Time 2 minor triggering provocation will be
noticed, and hence elicit high levels of aggression, will be moderated by whether the
aggression-priming effects of a the Time 1 provocation is maintained in conscious
awareness. Therefore, due to narrowing of attentional focus, when the Time 2
aggression-instigating cue is highly salient, alcohol will augment aggression. By
contrast, when the Time 2 triggering event lacks salience, intoxicated participants will
be less likely to notice it. Thus, given the aggression-priming function of an initial
Time 1 provocation, intoxicated participants will respond with higher levels of
aggression when triggered than when not triggered. Furthermore, because intoxicated
participants may focus more narrowly on instigation cues while failing to notice
inhibitory cues, this difference will be magnified relative to sober participants.
Present Research
The present study employed a procedure similar to that used in Pedersen et al.
(1999). With the exception of the administration and measurement of the presence or
absence of alcohol, and several scales that will be described shortly, the procedure
employed was almost identical. One additional important change that concerns the
triggering provocation manipulation should be noted. In Pedersen et al. (1999) the
triggering provocation was emitted by a black male displacement target (i.e. a
confederate) while in this study it was emitted by a white male. This change was made
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
9
for several reasons. First, most participants in psychological studies tend to white,
thereby making the out-group membership of the confederate in Pedersen et al. (1999)
a potential confound. A triggering provocation emitted by a black individual will be
confounded with out-group membership. Both the triggering provocation and alcohol
could potentially interact with group membership thereby dramatically altering the
expected results. A study by Bushman, Pedersen, Vasquez, Bonacci, & Miller (2001)
has already shown that, within the displaced aggression paradigm, out-group target
membership increases the level of aggression displayed. Moreover, these effects
may become magnified when alcohol is ingested. Although these effects are
potentially interesting and should be the focus of future research, we nonetheless
lacked the appropriate resources to examine them here. Examination of the effect of
group membership would have required the study to be twice as long and twice as
expensive. Furthermore, the interactive effects of alcohol, provocation, and trigger
should be further explored before moderators like group membership are examined.
This would allow both research and emergent theory on triggered displaced aggression
to proceed more clearly and orderly.
A second, perhaps more important reason for using a different displaced
aggression target concerns convergent validity. It is important to show that the results
obtained within Pedersen et al. (1999) do not only occur for the particular
displacement target they chose. By using another individual we can be more certain
that the results predicted under the displaced aggression paradigm are not due to
something peculiar about the target of displaced aggression.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
10
A pilot study was conducted in order to address the above concerns.
Participants in one condition rated an assistant (i.e., confederate) that emitted a minor
triggering provocation while others rated the same confederate in the absence of this
triggering provocation. All ratings occurred in the absence of a Time 1 provocation.
Participants were asked to make recommendation ratings, affective ratings that
assessed how the assistant made them feel, and performance ratings. As expected,
while participants that were minimally provoked gave higher performance ratings than
those not minimally provoked, recommendation and affective ratings failed to differ
(see table 1 below).
Table 1
Pilot Study. No provocation. Scale ranges from 1 (strongly agree) to 11 (strongly
disagree)
Trigger N Mean S.D.
Aggression composite No 15 4.47 2.07
(Cronbach’s alpha = .94) Yes 13 4.62 1.16
Affective composite No 15 5.42 2.67
manipulation check Yes 13 6.54 2.10
(Cronbach’s alpha = .85)
Behavioral composite No 15 4.77 1.78
manipulation check Yes 13 6.33 2.05
(Cronbach’s alpha =.89)
Affective + Behavioral No 13 6.42 1.96
composite manipulation check Yes 15 4.77 1.77
(Cronbach’s alpha = .88)
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
11
The present study employed a 2 (Alcohol: yes/no) X 2 (Trigger: yes/no) between
subjects design under constant provocation. Participants were first either given alcohol
or a non-alcoholic beverage and then all subjected to a moderately strong provocation.
As suggested in Miller (1999) and as argued in Pedersen et al. (1999), the
manipulation of the triggering provocation was of low intensity. A two way interaction
is predicted in which the presence of alcohol will differentially increase the effect of
the trigger. When conditions of trigger are compared with conditions of no trigger, a
larger difference in the level of aggressive responding is expected for intoxicated
participants relative to sober participants. Analysis of the components of this
interaction should verify that participants who were both intoxicated and triggered
were most aggressive, followed by those that were both sober and triggered, then those
that were intoxicated but not triggered, and finally those that were neither intoxicated
nor triggered. A main effect for alcohol is also predicted, suggesting that overall
intoxicated participants behave more aggressively than non-intoxicated participants.
This would be consistent with meta- analytic findings by Ito, Miller, and Pollock
(1996) that suggest that the aggressive behavior of intoxicated participants reliably
exceeds that of sober ones. Finally, a main effect of trigger was expected. Participants,
all of whom had previously been provoked, were expected to respond more
aggressively when exposed to a minor triggering provocation than when not exposed
to it. This result would replicate those found in Pedersen, et al. (1999) under
conditions of provocation.
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Method
Participants and Design
Participants were 16 females and 20 males. All participants were recruited
through an advertisement in the school newspaper offering payment for research
participation from persons over 21 years of age. No mention of alcohol appeared in
order to avoid obtaining a biased sample. Interested participants were initially
screened with the Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (Selzer, 1971) on which they had
to have scored 8 or less. Participants had to inform researchers that they have not had
any previous adverse reactions to alcohol and that they were not taking any medication
that contraindicated alcohol. Female participants had to agree to take a pregnancy test
prior to participation. Those participants who qualified were scheduled and randomly
assigned to conditions. All participants participated in a 2 (Alcohol/No Alcohol) X 2
(Trigger: Yes/No) between subjects design.
Procedure
Upon arrival, participants were greeted by a male experimenter and a female
graduate assistant. Within the study, the provocation was given by the experimenter
while the triggering provocation was emitted by a male assistant presented on video.
The experimenter instructed participants that they would be participating in a study
designed to assess the impact of alcohol on cognitive ability and that they would
therefore be receiving two drinks, which may or may not contain alcohol. They were
further told that they would not be told whether or not their beverage contained
alcohol until the end of the study. It was further explained that the study involved a lot
perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
13
of paperwork and materials that needed to be set up during the study and that
therefore, the assistant would be the one primarily in charge of running the experiment
while the experimenter would be preparing any related materials. Participants were
then told to follow the instructions of the assistant as she escorted them to another
room where the experiment would take place. Female participants were further told
that they should take a pregnancy test in order exclude pregnant women from the
experiment. All female participants agreed to do so. Unless otherwise stated, all
portions of the experiment were conducted by the female assistant.
Administration of questionnaires. Upon entering the other room, participants
were weighed and given the first of 5 blood alcohol level (BAL) tests with an Alco-
Sensor III in order to insure they were not initially intoxicated. They were then given a
set of questionnaires to fill out that included: 1) a consent form, 2) an initial
information sheet, 3) the Buss-Perry (1992) Aggression Questionnaire, 4) the
Sensation Scale (Maisto, Connors, Tucker, McCollam, & Adesso (1980), 5) the
Biphasic Alcohol Effects or BAES-2 scale (Earleywine, 1984) scale and 6) the Self-
Evaluation scale (Spielberger, 1970)
The initial information sheet asked subjects to report information such as
major, year in school, age, etc. The items of the Buss-Perry (1992) Aggression
Questionnaire were randomized to reduce suspicion. Unlike the Buss-Perry (1992)
Aggression Questionnaire, the Sensation (Maisto et al., 1980), BAES-2 (Earleywine,
1984), and the Self-Evaluation (Spielberger, 1970) scales were used to assess alcohol
intoxication effects and were administered at three different times: 1) prior to any
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
14
alcohol consumption, 2) after the provocation, and 3) after the triggering provocation
manipulation. Participants were told by the female assistant to fill out the first set of
forms and to knock on the door when they were finished. The assistant then exited the
room and prepared the drinks that would be consumed by participants.
Alcohol administration procedure. Participants received .7g alcohol/kg; a dose
comparable to those in the low dose groups from the meta-analysis by Ito et al. (1996).
Alcoholic drinks were prepared by combining 100 proof Vodka 1:8 with 7-UP.
Participants consumed this amount in two halves, each in 10 minutes, for a total of 20
minutes. In order to obtain an accurate measure, participants rinsed their mouths with
water before providing the second BAL. They were then told that they would be
participating in the next phase of the study.
Constant provocation procedure. Participants were told by the female assistant
that the rest of the study was concerned with problem solving ability and would be
divided in two halves. They were taken into a room that contained a tape recorder; a
timer, a television, and a VCR. They were then told that the purpose of the first part of
the experiment was to examine the effect of distraction on problem solving ability.
They received fifteen anagrams, along with an answer sheet, and were told to solve as
many of them as possible within two minutes while music played in the background.
The assistant then turned on the music and exited the room. After two minutes, she
reentered, turned off the music, took the answer sheet (ostensibly to give to the
experimenter to grade), and gave the participant a handout indicating how a sample of
engineering students had performed on the same anagram task under the same
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
15
conditions during the previous semester. After exiting again, the experimenter entered
after approximately two minutes to give the participant his or her score.
All participants listened to Stravinsky’s Rites of Spring played at 80 decibels
and were assigned difficult anagrams (e.g., tophhapogr = photograph). When the
experimenter returned with their scores they were first told that they had scored below
average, as compared with the sample of engineering students. Then, the experimenter
insulted them about their problem solving ability and effort by telling them that their
performance was really poor and that the anagram portion of the experiment should be
done over again. However, the experimenter then added in an exasperated and irritated
tone that it would be a waste of his time to rerun the session, and that therefore they
should just proceed to the second part of the study. The experimenter then told them
that the assistant would be with them shortly and exited the room.
Trigger procedure. The assistant returned to the room, obtained the 3rd BAL,
and asked participants to fill out a second set of Sensation, BAES-2, and Self-
Evaluation scales. Participants were told to knock on the door when they were
finished. She then exited the room.
After participants indicated that they were finished, the assistant reentered, and
introduced the next part of the study. Participants were told that the next part of the
study was designed to investigate the distracting effects of attending to both audio and
visual cues. It was explained that an assistant on a video would ask them 15 trivia
questions. The trivia questions would be spoken aloud by the assistant and that
multiple-choice foils for each would be presented on a card that he displayed. They
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
16
were to correctly answer as many as possible, using the response form provided by the
experimenter. They were also told that the assistant who appeared in the videotape is
currently a volunteer research assistant who has applied for a paid research
assistantship position for next semester. They were then told that the director of the
current project has therefore asked that participants provide feedback about the
assistant’s performance on the task at the end of the experiment.
The experimenter then turned on the videotape and exited the room. The
videotape began immediately. On it, a white male research assistant read trivia
questions aloud while holding up multiple-choice responses for each question. After
the conclusion of the tape, the assistant reentered the room, retrieved the participant’s
answer sheet, again provided a summary sheet indicating the average score obtained
by engineering students from the previous semester, and then exited to give the answer
sheet to the experimenter to grade. She told the participant that the experimenter
would check in with them shortly.
Trigger manipulation. In the trigger condition, the research assistant on the
video read the questions very quickly, mispronounced some of the words and names,
and occasionally mixed up multiple-choice responses, reading question 9 for instance,
and then presenting the answers to question 10. When the experimenter entered the
room, participants were told they did poorly in comparison to engineering students,
but were not insulted about their performance. In the no trigger condition, the video
taped assistant read the questions slowly, made no pronunciation errors, and correctly
matched the questions with the appropriate answer choices. Subsequently, they were
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
17
told by the experimenter that their score was about the same as the engineering
students’ average. The experimenter then told the participant that the assistant would
join them shortly and then exited the room.
Dependent measures. The assistant reentered the room and obtained the 4th
BAL. She then asked participants to fill out a third set Sensation, BAES-2, and Self-
Evaluation scales as well as the dependent measures. The first set of dependent
measures included five 11-point likert scale items for which participants rated the
extent to which they recommended the research assistant, as well as the degree to
which he was competent, likeable, friendly, and intelligent. The second set of
measures included seven 11-point likert scale items that assessed the degree to which
the participant was irritated, happy, and angered, as well as the extent to which they
believed the assistant read the questions slowly, clearly, efficiently, and correctly.
Additional measures included a Mood Adjective Checklist (MACL; Nowlis, 1965). To
give the presence of anonymity, the participant was told not to include any identifying
information on the forms.
Upon completion of the final set of forms, the assistant collected all the forms
and exited the room. The experimenter then entered, obtained the 5th BAL, and
thoroughly debriefed all participants. Participants that had consumed a non-alcoholic
beverage were paid and dismissed immediately after. Participants that consumed an
alcoholic beverage remained in the room and did leisurely activities until their BAL
dropped to an acceptable level. They were then paid for their time and departed.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
18
Results
Participants were divided as evenly as possible between conditions. The
sample included 20 males and 16 females. Of these, 23 were White, 4 were African
American, 2 were Hispanic, 5 were Asian, and 2 fell under the category of “other”.
The mean age was 23.23 and the range was 21 to 40. There were 11 Whites, 2 African
Americans, 1 Hispanic, 2 Asians, and 2 “other” in the no-alcohol condition. The
alcohol condition consisted of 12 Whites, 2 Blacks, 1 Hispanic, 3 Asians, and 0
“others”. Similarly, there were 11 Whites, 2 African Americans, 1 Hispanic, 3 Asians,
and 1 “others” in the no trigger condition while there were 12 Whites, 2 African
Americans, 1 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 1 “others” in the trigger condition.
Aggression questionnaire. Four subscales comprise the Buss-Perry (1992) Aggression
Questionnaire. They include; 1) the physical aggression subscale, 2) the verbal
aggression subscale, 3) the anger subscale, and 4) the hostility subscale. These
measures failed to reveal any differences among participants for any conditions, ns.
Alcohol manipulation checks.
BAL. Several measures were used to assess alcohol intoxication effects. The
first and most important of these was the estimation of blood alcohol level (BAL) with
a breath sample obtained through the use of an Alco-Sensor III. Measurements were
made at five different times: 1) prior to consumption of beverages in order to insure
participants were not initially intoxicated, 2) immediately after consumption of
beverages, 3) after induction of the provocation, 4) after induction of the trigger, and
5) after completion of the dependent measures. As expected, participants in the no
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
19
alcohol condition did not differ in their BAL from those in the alcohol condition
during time 1, although the appropriate test-statistic could not be computed because
the standards deviations for both groups were zero. Significant differences between
alcohol and non-alcohol subjects were found 10, 25, 45, and 55 minutes after beverage
consumption (see Table 2 below).
Table 2
Blood alcohol levels at time intervals (in minutes) after drink consumption. Alcohol
participants only (n = 18).
Time Pre-drink 10 min. 25 min. 45 min. 55 min.
BAL 1 2 3 4 5
Mean .000 .060 .044 .040 .041
S.D. .00 .02 .02 .01 .01
Sensation. BAES-2. and Self-Evaluation scales.
The Sensation Scale (Maisto et al., 1980) is composed of seven subscales. The
first is a gastro-intestinal change subscale comprised of the items “nauseous”,
’’stomach growling”, “burning in stomach”, and “stomach bloated”. The second is an
anesthetic subscale that refers to decreased sensitivity to feelings that is composed of
the items “tongue thicker”, “face numb”, “numb all over”, “lips numb”, “head numb”,
“relaxed”, “drowsy”, “limbs heavy”, and “heavy”. The third is a central stimulant
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
2 0
subscale that refers to sensations involving effects on the brain that is composed of the
items “light headed”, “head spinning”, “dizzy”, and “ringing, buzzing”. The fourth
subscale is concerned with impaired function and contains items “impaired writing”,
“impaired vision”, and “difficulty with thinking”. The fifth subscale refers to
“warmth/glow” and concerns items “warm”, “face flush”, and “cheeks warm”. The
sixth subscale concerns dynamic peripheral changes that include items “breathing
changing”, “heart beat changing”, and “body rushes”. The seventh and final subscale
is called “other” and contains items “powerful”, “itchy”, “hands cool”, “head
throbbing”, and “ears tingling”. Ratings on this scale are made on a scale of 0 (not at
all) to 10 (a great deal).
The BAES-2 (Earleywine, 1984) and the Self-Evaluation (Spielberger, 1970)
scales were also examined. The BAES-2 scale is composed of two subscales that refer
to alcohol’s stimulant and sedative effects. The sedative effects composite includes the
items “elated”, “energized”, “excited”, “stimulated”, “talkative”, “up”, and
“vigorous”. Ratings on this scale are made from 1 (not at all) to 10 (extremely). The
Self-Evaluation scale is the trait portion of the Spielberger (1970) State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory and includes items rated from 1 (almost never) to 4 (almost always).
Before beverage administration. As expected, all scales failed to reveal any
reliable differences between alcohol and no alcohol participants prior to beverage
administration, ns.
25 minutes after beverage adminstration. The Sensation Scale (Maisto, 1980)
revealed some differences between alcohol and no alcohol conditions during this time.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
21
The anesthetic and central stimulant subscales revealed differences between
intoxicated and sober participants, (t(32) = 2.17, p<.05 and t(33) = 2.19, p<.05
respectively. Intoxicated participants indicated both more anesthetic and central
stimulant changes than sober participants. Intoxicated participants also indicated
marginally more “impaired function” and “warmth/glow” than sober participants,
t(34) = 1.88, p_= .07 and t(32) = 1.87, p = .07 respectively. No other reliable
differences emerged. The BAES-2 (Earleywine, 1984) and Self-Evaluation
(Spielberger, 1970) scales failed to detect any differences between intoxicated and
sober participants, ns.
45 minutes after beverage admictration. Once again, the Sensation scale
(Maisto, 1980) revealed some differences between intoxicated and sober participants
during this time. Intoxicated participants indicated reliably more gastro-intestinal
change than sober participants, t(31) = 2.00, p=.05. Intoxicated participants also
indicated marginally more “warmth/glow” during this period, t(32) = 1.87, p = .07.
The BAES-2 (Earleywine, 1984) and Self-Evaluation (Spielberger, 1970) scales once
again failed to reveal any reliable differences between intoxicated and sober
participants, ns.
Trigger manipulation checks. To assess the effectiveness of the trigger manipulation, 7
items were combined to form a composite score: three of these were affective in
nature and assessed the extent to which participants felt irritated, happy, and angered
or upset by the research assistant’s performance; the other four were more behavioral
and were used to evaluate the extent to which participants felt the research assistant
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
read the questions slow, spoke clearly, administered the questions efficiently, and read
the questions correctly. Because two of the items of the affective composite assessed
negative affect (i.e., irritated and angered or upset) while the other item assessed
positive affect (i.e., happy), scores for these items were standardized and appropriate
reverse scoring was done for the two affectively negative items prior to forming the
composite. All composite scores were based on 11-point scales that ranged from 1
(strongly agree) to 11 (strongly disagree). The high portion of each scale, however,
was expanded. That is, depending on the valence of the items, the described midpoint
of the scale was either 4 or 7 thereby allowing 7 levels of differentiation at the
negative side of each scale. Internal consistency of all 7 items was high (Cronbach’s
alpha = .91). Internal consistency of the items that comprised the affective and
behavioral composites was high as well (Cronbach’s alpha = .82 and .90 respectively).
A 2 X 2 ANOVA failed to reveal a reliable alcohol by trigger interaction for these
composite scores, F(l, 32) = 1.39, p>.10. Overall, participants in the trigger condition
indicated greater agreement with the 7-item composite than those in the no trigger
condition, t(34) = 4.51, p<.001. Participants in the trigger condition also felt more
negative affect, as indicated by their greater agreement with the 3-item affective
composite, than participants in the no trigger condition, t(34) = 3.25, p<.05. The 4-
item behavioral composite revealed more agreement by participants in the trigger
condition than those in the no trigger condition as well, t(34) = 4.59, p<.001, thus
indicating that trigger participants believed the assistant’s performance was worse than
perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
no trigger participants. These results all indicate the effectiveness of the trigger
manipulation.
We also assessed the effectiveness of the trigger for alcohol and no alcohol
subjects separately. Analysis showed that for the alcohol condition, triggered
participants indicated more agreement with the 7-item aggression composite than non
triggered participants, t(16) = 4.09, p_= .001. These participants also indicated more
agreement with the 3 and 4-item composites (i.e., the affective and behavioral
composite respectively) than non-triggered participants, t(16) = = 3.08, p<.005 and t(16)
= 3.60, p<.005 respectively. The no-alcohol condition showed a slightly different
pattern of results. Specifically, in the no alcohol condition, triggered participants did
not differ significantly from non-triggered participants on the 3-item affective
composite, t(16) = .92, p>.10. However, these participants did indicate more
agreement with the 7-item aggression composite as well as the 4-item behavioral
composite, t(16) = 2.26,p<05 andt(16) = 2.80,p<.05 respectively.
Aggression Measure
Triggered displaced aggression. Five items were combined to form a
composite score in order to assess aggression toward the target: four were evaluative
ratings of the confederate (viz., liking, competence, friendly, and intelligent); one was
more behavioral (viz., the research recommends the research assistant to be a paid
intern). We again used the aforementioned expanded 11-point scales which ranged
from 1 (strongly agree) to 11 (strongly disagree). Internal consistency among the items
was high (Cronbach’s alpha = .94). As expected, a 2X2 ANOVA of the composite
perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
2 4
scores yielded the alcohol by trigger interaction (see Figure below), F(l,32) = 4.89,p
= .05. A main effect of trigger was also found, F(l,32) = 16.49, £<.001, but the main
effect of alcohol failed to reach significance, F(l,32) = 2.12, £>.10.
5 -
□ no trigger
■ trigger
A .
3 ‘ 1 -----------
2 -
1 --------------- 1 -------------------------------------- 1
No alcohol Alcohol
Figure. Numbers to the left of the figure represent the mean recommendation rating
for each respective condition. Larger numbers represent less favorable ratings.
One-Way ANOVAs were performed in order to examine the simple effects
that are of theoretical interest. Analysis revealed a simple effect of alcohol, F(l,16) =
4.89, p<.05, indicating that triggered alcohol participants were more aggressive than
triggered no-alcohol participants. However, the simple effect of alcohol for the no
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
trigger condition failed to attain significance, F(l,16) = .22, £>.10, indicating that non-
triggered alcohol participants were not more aggressive than non-triggered no-alcohol
participants. One-Way ANOVAs for both the alcohol and no alcohol conditions were
also performed. Analysis revealed a simple effect of trigger for no alcohol
participants, F(l,16) = 4.89, p<.05, as well as a simple effect of trigger for alcohol
participants, F( 1,16) = 11.76, p<.005.
Discussion
The present data are congruent with the theoretical model of triggered
displaced aggression presented previously. As was hypothesized, non-intoxicated
participants who were subjected to the Time 2 minor triggering provocation displayed
more aggression than those that were not triggered. This replicates the results reported
in Pedersen et al. (1999) under conditions of provocation. It should be noted that, as
predicted by the theoretical arguments of Miller & Marcus-Newhall (1997), aggressive
responding can exceed the sum of the unique effects of both the initial provocation
and the subsequent triggering provocation. In order to adequately support the claim
that disjunctively escalated aggressive responding has indeed taken place, a no
provocation control condition is required. The 2 (alcohol/ no alcohol) X 2 (trigger/ no
trigger) design with constant provocation that was used here did not contain the
critical no provocation condition required to adequately assess support for the
predicted interaction. The pilot study conducted prior to our main experiment did
show that non-provoked participants failed to detect any differences between the
trigger and no trigger conditions, however. While, the administration of the trigger and
perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
26
no trigger procedures under no provocation were not identical to that in Pederson,
Gonzales, & Miller (1999) (i.e., they were administered to groups), they nonetheless
confirm that the results are not due to any pre-existing differences between the two
conditions. Therefore, the results of the present study more likely reflect the
interaction between alcohol and the triggering provocation predicted previously.
We were also able to show that like non-intoxicated individuals, intoxicated
and subsequently provoked participants can also displace more aggression toward an
innocent target when triggered than when not triggered. More importantly, as
indicated by the alcohol by trigger interaction that was obtained previously under
constant prior provocation, this escalation of displaced aggression is greater for
intoxicated participants than non-intoxicated participants (see Figure 1). In addition,
simple effect analyses showed that both intoxicated and non-intoxicated participants
displayed more aggression when triggered than when not triggered. Simple effect
analysis also revealed, as expected, that among triggered participants, those that
consumed alcohol displaced more aggression than those that did not. However,
analysis also indicated an unanticipated result; when not triggered, intoxicated
participants displaced no more aggression than non-intoxicated participants, even
though they were all previously provoked. It should further be noted that non-triggered
intoxicated participants displayed the least aggression overall. This last result should
be interpreted with caution in light of the limited statistical power of this study due to
the small number of participants.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
2 7
The results of the present study seem to be consistent with cognitive theories of
intoxicated aggression. The assumption that alcohol narrows attentional focus, thereby
making salient instigating cues more noticeable while impairing perception of
aggression inhibiting stimuli is common to cognitive theories (Ito et al., 1996). It is
difficult, however to make an argument for the anxiolysis-disinhibition model with the
present data. The anxiolysis-disinhibition model argues that alcohol increases
aggression in situations where anxiety is normally aroused in the absence of
intoxication. Although the data set does not contain any measures of anxiety, it could
be argued that the experimental setting does indeed meet the condition required for
anxiolysis-disinhibition to take place. The anxiety provoking cues in our study do not
take place until after participants have consumed alcohol. Participants were asked to
consume an alcoholic beverage before they were given any information about the
situation they were subsequently placed in. Only then were participants provoked and
told that they would be evaluating a supposed research assistant. A provocation in this
experimental setting normally arouses anxiety because personal standards of behavior
preclude retaliation (one cannot aggress toward the initial provocateur because he is
the experimenter). Although we have not assessed them, these personal standards may
become evident to participants once they are provoked. Participants must then
suppress their anger and any thought of retaliating toward the experimenter. However,
the anxiolysis-disinhibition model cannot be applied here because in the present study,
direct retaliation is always precluded. Participants are instead given a safe, less anxiety
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
producing opportunity to aggress by evaluating a research assistant (i.e., the
displacement target person).
A much stronger case can be made for the results of the present study in terms
of the inhibition conflict model. The inhibition conflict model argues that because of
the narrowed focus of intoxicated individuals, they can only attend to the most salient
cues of their environment. These cues tend to be the instigating cues (i.e., the features
of the provocations) and not inhibiting cues such as personal standards of behavior. In
our study, the instigating cues are the Time 1 provocation by the experimenter and the
Time 2 triggering provocation by the displacement target person. And since direct
retaliation is always precluded, the participant is then allowed to focus his attention on
the trivial instigating cues emitted by the displacement target person. Alcohol
increases the likelihood that intoxicated participants focus on these cues more than
sober ones and therefore react more strongly to them. It should be noted that when the
displacement target person does not emit any triggering provocation, intoxicated and
sober participants fail to differ in the amount of aggression they display.
It should noted that as in any study, the procedures, theoretical assumptions
and conclusions drawn here may be less than perfect. One potential serious problem
for the present study relates to the fact that both the initial provocation and the
triggering provocation concerned cognitive ability. Since participants were initially
provoked partly by being told that they performed poorly on an anagram task, the
potential therefore exists, for participants to have believed their performance was due
to alcohol-related cognitive impairment and not a lack of ability, thereby reducing the
perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
effectiveness of the provocation. Furthermore, since provocation was constant, we
were not able to assess the effectiveness of the provocation relative a no provocation
control. Nonetheless, participants were told that their level of performance was based
on comparisons with previous participants that were tested under the same conditions.
Furthermore, the fact that we were able to obtain differential aggressiveness for
intoxicated trigger and no trigger participants suggests that the provocation
manipulation was successful because it parallels results obtained in Pedersen et al.
(1999) for sober participants. The studies in Pedersen et al. (1999) did contain the
appropriate no provocation conditions necessary for the assessment of the
effectiveness of the provocation manipulation. It should also be noted that the
manipulation of provocation also partly depends on the rude comments made by the
experimenter. Finally, the Mood Adjective Checklist (MACL) did not reveal any
affective differences between intoxicated and sober participants for this study (see
Appendix).
Another potential problem concerns the fact that trigger manipulation was also
based on cognitive ability. Again, intoxicated participants could have blamed their
performance on the effects of alcohol. Nonetheless, this is unlikely due to the fact that
both sober and intoxicated participants distinguished between trigger and no trigger
conditions. Also potentially troublesome was that participants took part in a task that
required them to read questions from a television monitor. Intoxicated participants
might have experienced impaired vision and as a consequence performed worse on the
task. This could have caused them to react more strongly to the trigger. Nonetheless,
with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
30
this claim is partly invalidated by the fact that intoxicated participants failed to differ
from sober participants in the no trigger condition. Furthermore, the item on the
Sensation Scale (Maisto et al., 1980) that asked participants to indicate the extent to
which they experienced “impaired vision” failed to reveal any differences between
conditions, ns.
Many of the problems pointed out above could have been remedied by the
addition of a no provocation condition and a replication employing provocation and
trigger manipulations that were not cognitively based. The substitution of a different
measure of aggression, one that is less socially acceptable, would also be useful. It
could be argued that aggression as assessed in the present study, like the teacher-
leamer paradigm, can have altruistic intentions. Participants that evaluate an assistant
negatively may believe that they are being helpful in preventing an unworthy
employee from being hired. Despite these shortcomings, the present study makes an
important contribution to the alcohol-aggression literature.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
31
References
Anderson, C.A. (1989). Temperature and aggression; Ubiquitous effects of
heat on occurrence of human violence. Psychological Bulletin. 106. 74-96.
Averill, J.R. (1982). Anger and Aggression: An essay on emotion. New York:
Basic Books.
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
Baron, R.A., & Bell, P.A. (1975). Aggression and heat: Mediating effects of
prior provocation and exposure to an aggressive model. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 31. 825-832.
Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and
reformulation. Psychological Bulletin. 106. 59-73.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Bettencourt, B.A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a
function of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 119. 59-73.
Bushman, B. J., & Cooper, H. M. (1990). Effects of alcohol on human
aggression: An integrative research review. Psychological Bulletin. 107. 341-354.
Bushman, B. J., Pedersen, W. C., Vasquez, E. A., Bonacci, A. M., & Miller, N.
(2001). Chewing on it can chew you up: Effects of Rumination on triggered displaced
aggression. Under Review.
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of
Personality and Social Psvchologv.63.452-459.
Carlson, M., Marcus-Newhall, A., & Miller N. (1989). Evidence for a general
construct of aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 15(3). 377-389.
Carlson, M. & Miller, N. (1988). Bad experiences and aggression. Sociology
& Social Research. 72, 155-158.
Carver, C.S., & Glass, D.C. (1978). Coronary-prone behavior pattern and
interpersonal aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 36. 361-366.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
32
Dodge, K.A., & Coie, J.D. (1987). Social-information-processing factors in
reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 53. 1146-1158.
Dollard, J. (1938). Hostility and fear in social life. Social Forces. 17, 15-25.
Dollard, J., Doob, L.W., Miller, N.E., Mowrer, O.H., & Sears, R.R. (1939).
Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dunand, M. A. (1986). Violence and panic at Brussels Football Stadium in
1985: Social-psychological approach to events. Cahiers de Psvchologie. 6, 235-266.
Duncan, B.L. (1976). Differential social perception and attribution of
intergroup violence: Testing the lower limit of stereotyping blacks. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 34. 590-598.
Earleywine, M. (1984). Confirming the factor structure of the anticipated
biphasic alcohol effects scale. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 18. 861-
866.
Ferguson, T.J. & Rule, B.G. (1988). An attributional perspective on anger and
aggression. In R.G. Geen & E.I. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and
empirical reviews (pp. 43-74). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Feshbach, S. (1964). The function of aggression and the regulation of
aggressive drive. Psychological Review. 71. 257-272.
Geen, R.G., & Berkowitz, L. (1967). Some conditions facilitating the
occurrence of aggression after the observation of violence. Journal of Personality. 35.
666-676.
Goulner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Psychological
Review, 25, 161-178.
Gray, J.A. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Greenwell, J., & Dengerink, H.A. (1973). The role of perceived versus actual
attack in human physical aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26,
66-71.
Griffit, W. (1970). Environmental on interpersonal affective behavior: Ambient
affective temperature and attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15.
240-244.
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
33
Gustafson, R. (1993). What do experimental paradigms tell us about alcohol-
related aggressive responding? Journal of Studies on Alcohol, (Suppl. 11), 20-29.
Havlond, C., & Sears, R. (1990). Minor studies in aggression: VI. Correlation
of lynchings with economic indices. Journal of Psychology. 9. 301-310.
Hepworth, J.T., & West, S.G. (1988). Lynchings and the economy: A time-
series reanalysis of Hovland and Sears (1940). Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 55. 239-247.
Higgins, E.T., & King, G. (1981). Accessibility of social constructs:
Information-processing consequences of individual and contextual variability. In N.
Cantor & J.F. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction (pp. 69-
121). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hoaken, P.S., & Pihl, R.O. (2000). The effects of alcohol intoxication on
aggressive responses in men and women. Alcohol and Alcoholism. 35.471-477.
Hovland, C., & Sears, R. (1940). Minor studies in aggression: VI. Correlation
of lynchings with economic indices. Journal of Psychology. 9. 301-310.
Hull, J. G. & Bond, C. F. (1986). Social and behavioral consequences of
alcohol consumption and expectancy: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 99.
347-360.
Huntley, M.J. (1973). Effects of alcohol and fixation-task difficulty on choice
reaction time to extrafoveal stimulation. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 34.
89-103.
Ito, T.A., Miller, N., & Pollock, V.E. (1996). Alcohol and aggression: A meta
analysis on the moderating effects of inhibitory cues, triggering events, and self
focused attention. Psychological Bulletin. 120. 60-82.
Maisto, S. A., Connors, G. J, Tucker, J. A., McCollam, J. B., & Adesso, V. J.
(1980). Validation of the sensation scale, a measure of subjective physiological
responses to alcohol. Behavioral Research and Therapy. 18. 37-43.
Marcus-Newhall, A., Pedersen, W.C., Carlson, M., & Miller, N. (in press).
Displaced aggression is alive and well: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology.
Miller, N. (1999). A theoretical model of triggered displaced aggression.
Submitted to Personality and Social Psychology Review.
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
34
Miller, N. & Marcus-Newhall, A. (1997). A conceptual analysis of displaced
aggression. In R. Ben-Ari & Y. Rich (Eds.), Enhancing education in heterogeneous
schools: Theory and application (pp. 69-108). Bar-Ilan University Press.
Miller, T. E. (1983). Helping students to be responsible sporting events fans.
Journal of College Student Personnel. 24. 367-368.
Moskowitz, H., & DePry, D. (1968). Differential effect of alcohol on auditory
vigilance and divided-attention tasks. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 29.
54-63.
Muehlberger, C. W. (1956). Medicolegal aspects of alcohol intoxication.
Michigan State Bar Journal. 35. 38-42.
Mullen, B. (1986). Atrocity as a function of lynch mob composition: A self
attention perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 12. 187-197.
Murdoch, D., Pihl, R.O., & Ross, D. (1990). Alcohol and crimes of violence:
Present issues. International Journal of Addictions. 25. 1065-1081.
Nowlis, V. (1965). Research with the mood adjective checklist. In S.S.
Tomkins & C.E. Izard (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and personality (pp.352-389). New
York: Springer.
Pedersen, W.C., Aviles, F.E., Ito, T.A., Miller, N., & Pollock, V. E. (2001).
Psychological experimentation on alcohol-induced human aggression. Aggression and
Violent Behavior. 7. 1-20.
Pedersen, W.C., Gonzales, C., & Miller, N. (1999). The moderating effect of
trivial triggering provocation on displaced aggression. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 78. 913-927.
Pernanen, K. (1976). Alcohol and crimes of violence. In B. Kissin, & H.
Begleite (Eds.), The biology of alcoholism, vol. 4. Social aspect of alcoholism
(pp.351-441). New York: Plenum.
Pihl, R.O. (1983). Alcohol and aggression: A psychological perspective. In E.
Gottheil, K. A. Druley, T.E. Skoloda, & H. M. Waxman (Eds.), Alcohol, drug use, and
aggression (pp. 292-313). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Pihl, R.O., Petersen, J. B., & Lau, M. A. (1993). A biosocial model of the
alcohol-aggression relationship. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. tSuppl. 11). 128-139.
Sayette, M. A. (1993). An appraisal-disruption model of alcohol’s effect on
stress responses in social drinkers. Psychological Bulletin. 114. 459-476.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
35
Selzer, M. L. (1971). The Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test: The quest for
a new diagnostic instrument. American Journal of Psychiatry. 127. 1653-1658.
Simons, Y., & Taylor, S.P. (1992). A psychological model of fan violence in
sports. International Journal of Sport Psychology. 23. 207-226.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. (1970). Self-Evaluation
Questionnaire. Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. Palo Alto, California.
Steele, C.M., & Josephs, R.A. (1990). Alcohol myopia: Its prized and
dangerous effects. American Psychologist. 45. 921-933.
Steele, C.M., & Southwick, L. (1985). Alcohol and social behavior I: The
psychology of drunken excess. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 48.
18-34.
Taylor, S.P., & Chermack S.T. (1993). Alcohol, drugs, and human physical
aggression. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. (Suppl. 11). 78-88.
Taylor, S.P. & Leonard, K. E. (1983). Alcohol and human physical aggression.
In R.G. Geen & E.I. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical review. Vol 2: Issues
in research (pp.77-101). New York: Academic Press.
Walburg, J.A. (1985). Violence by sports fans and alcohol. Tijdschrift voor
Alcohol. Drugs en Andere Psvchotrope. 11. 139-140.
Webster, D.M., & Kruglanski, A.W. (1994). Individual differences in need
for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 67. 1049-1062.
Washburn, C. (1956). Alcohol, self and the group. Quarterly Journal of Studies
on Alcohol. 17. 108-123.
Worchel, P. (1966). Displacement and the summation of frustration. Journal of
Experimental Research in Personality. 1, 256-261.
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
36
Appendix
Mood Adjective Checklist (MACL)
Scale ranges from 1 to 4 with 4 indicating greater agreement.
Suspicion composite of MACL
Positive affect composite of MACL
Sadness composite of MACL
Anger composite of MACL
DRINK N MEAN S.D.
Alcohol 18 2.67 .64
No alcohol 18 2.54 .54
Alcohol 18 3.40 .52
No alcohol 18 3.43 .64
Alcohol 18 3.36 .74
No alcohol 18 3.15 .67
Alcohol 18 3.17 .81
No alcohol 18 3.15 .72
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Provocateur status, attributions, and triggered displaced aggression

PDF

Effect of affective reactions by an outgroup on preferences for crossed categorization discussion partners

PDF

Evidence for spontaneous situational inferences

PDF

Displaced aggression as a function of target power

PDF

Atypicality: Benefit and bane. Provocation, trigger, typicality, and the expression of aggression and generalization

PDF

Asymmetries in the bidirectional associative strengths between events in cue competition for causes and effects

PDF

Expectancies for alternative behaviors predict drinking problems: A test of a cognitive reformulation of the matching law

PDF

Effects of threat and self-focus on consensual bias in majorities

PDF

Effects of personal resource sufficiency on perceived difficulty and desirability of earthquake preparedness

PDF

Alcohol expectancies and consumption: Age and sex differences

PDF

Intragroup evaluations, attitude source, and in-group member derogation

PDF

Adolescents' social attitudes: Genes and culture?

PDF

Five quantile test: A comparison of independent groups

PDF

Articulated thoughts about intentions to commit anti-gay hate crimes

PDF

Affection and conflict in family relationships

PDF

Hedonic aspects of conditioned taste aversion in rats and humans

PDF

Depression and suicidality in Latino adolescents: A study of acculturation and gender role beliefs

PDF

Depression in offspring following severe prenatal stress

PDF

Explanations, the availability heuristic, and biases of subjective likelihood in economics

PDF

Applying the theory of reasoned action to condom use: The effect of immediate consequences on intention-behavior consistency

Asset Metadata

Creator Aviles, Fredy Eduardo (author)

Core Title Alcohol's impact on triggered displaced aggression

School Graduate School

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, behavioral,psychology, social

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Miller, Norman (committee chair), [illegible] (committee member), Read, Stephen (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-298524

Unique identifier UC11342281

Identifier 1414821.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-298524 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 1414821.pdf

Dmrecord 298524

Document Type Thesis

Rights Aviles, Fredy Eduardo

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA