The Impact of Individual Difference Factors on Men’s Competitive Intent Against a Female Confederate Following Social Stress

Abstract

The perpetration of violence against women by men is an important social issue. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that particular individual factors increase risk of perpetration; however, much of the research occurs outside of social contexts. The current study examined the manipulation of feedback valence on male participants’ competitive intent, conceptualized as a precursor to aggression, against a female confederate following a social stress task. It was expected that negative feedback (i.e., experimental condition) would elicit greater increases in competitive intent compared with positive feedback (i.e., control condition). However, it was also expected that this increase in competitive intent would be moderated by individual difference factors (i.e., physical aggression, hostility, emotion regulation difficulties, and psychological symptoms). The results suggest differential responding between the experimental and control conditions for competitive intent. Physical aggression, emotion regulation difficulties, and depression symptom severity moderated the differences in competitive intent in the experimental condition.

Keywords

relationship aggression emotion regulation depression competition

Violence against women is an important social issue that has received much attention as of late. In college-aged samples, as many as 21% of men report perpetrating physical aggression against a female intimate partner in the past year (Desmarais, Reeves, Nicholls, Telford, & Fiebert, 2012), while 14% to 58% of men report perpetrating some form of sexual aggression against a woman, regardless of relationship status (Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987; Loh, Orchowski, Gidycz, & Elizaga, 2007; Parkhill & Abbey, 2008). Past research has focused needed attention on the identification of factors that may influence aggressive responding and increase perpetration risk, such as adverse childhood experiences, general aggressive behavior, psychological symptoms, and emotion regulation difficulties (Gratz, Paulson, Jakupcak, & Tull, 2009; Nguyen & Parkhill, 2014; Schumacher, Feldbau-Kohn, Slep, & Heyman, 2001). However, most research has not examined these factors experimentally within a controlled social context. The aim of the current pilot study was to determine whether situational social stress interacted with individual difference risk factors to facilitate changes in men’s competitive intent against a female confederate (i.e., a possible precursor to aggression). Furthermore, a secondary aim was to examine whether men’s perceptions of women could be manipulated following the valenced feedback provided during the socially stressful task.

Male-Perpetrated Aggression

Research on predictors of male-perpetrated aggression can be conducted at three levels: distal predictors, proximal predictors, and experimental predictors. Research has identified numerous distal predictors that covary with self-reported relationship aggression. For example, male gender role socialization, negative attitudes about women, delinquency, and childhood abusive experiences are all related to later perpetrating violence against women (for reviews, see Schumacher et al., 2001; Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, & Tritt, 2004).

Furthermore, researchers have identified several proximal predictors which help explain why aggression may have occurred during that particular incident. For example, cognitive impairments, substance use, emotion regulation difficulties, general aggression, psychological symptoms, and communication issues have all been positively related to increases in violence against women at a proximal level or on an event-level basis (Brower & Price, 2001; Cornelius, Shorey, & Beebe, 2010; Gratz et al., 2009; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, McCullars, & Misra, 2012; Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987; Nguyen & Parkhill, 2014; Schumacher et al., 2001).

Finally, at the experimental level, research has identified other situational characteristics that potentially influence an increased likelihood of aggressive responding. For example, numerous studies have found that provocation is an important predictor of aggression against women using the Taylor Aggression Paradigm (Finkel, DeWall, Slotter, Oaten, & Foshee, 2009). Other lab studies have extensively studied the effects of acute alcohol intoxication using simulated dating scenarios in which the participant must report on their likelihood of using aggression if they were the man in the story (for a review, see Seto & Barbaree, 1995). Therefore, general aggression/hostility and depression symptom severity were examined in the current study as proximal risk factors which may increase competitive intent, a possible precursor for aggressive responding. Furthermore, very little research has examined the mechanism by which these factors may affect aggressive behavior in social contexts. One such possible mechanism is emotion regulation difficulties, which has an established relationship with aggression and relationship aggression (Gratz et al., 2009).

Emotion Regulation Development and Aggression in Men

There are several developmental and environmental risk factors that may contribute to maladaptive emotion regulation and may undermine the development of adaptive emotion regulation capacities (Thompson & Calkins, 1996). These risk factors may increase the frequency and intensity of negative emotional experiences. As a child attempts to manage the prolonged, heightened states of negative emotion and predict when threatening or harmful events may occur, normative emotion regulation development is impeded (Cummings & Davies, 1996). Without the security, predictability, and healthy variations in the intensity of positive and negative emotional experiences, children may not develop abilities to understand emotional experiences, tolerate and regulate distress and arousal, and control or choose appropriate behavioral responses (Linehan, 1993; Thompson & Calkins, 1996).

There is evidence to suggest that male gender role socialization may play an integral role in the experience and expression of emotion for men (Jakupcak, Salters, Gratz, & Roemer, 2003). Men may be socialized to inhibit their experience of emotion and emotional expression (i.e., nonacceptance of emotion), particularly those that threaten their masculinity (e.g., depression, shame, guilt, and humiliation; Fabes & Martin, 1991; Romano & De Luca, 2001; Root & Denham, 2010). The inhibition of emotions may have a direct impact on men’s abilities to regulate their emotions (e.g., Gross & John, 1998; Jakupcak et al., 2003). As a result of inhibition, there may be a paradoxical increase in the negative emotions they are attempting to inhibit. Due to the development of maladaptive strategies, they may not be equipped to regulate such heightened arousal or negative emotional states. Research has suggested that men may use violence and aggression to avoid those vulnerable emotions (Jakupcak et al., 2003). Therefore, maladaptive emotion regulation strategies may partially explain the increased risk of aggression in men when arousal or negative emotional experiences are heightened (Gratz et al., 2009).

This assertion is further supported in a study by Eckhardt and Kassinove (1998), in which married, violent participants articulated more irrational beliefs and automatic thoughts in response to an anger-inducing paradigm than married, nonviolent participants, and nonviolent participants expressed more statements to control their anger than married, violent participants. This result has been replicated in college students; students who self-reported perpetration of dating violence were more likely to express irrational beliefs and cognitive biases than nonviolent participants, while nonviolent participants verbalized significantly more statements to control anger than violent participants (Eckhardt & Jamison, 2002). Furthermore, according to Maldonado, DiLillo, and Hoffman (2014), perpetrators of intimate partner aggression articulated a greater number of aggressive verbalizations during an anger-inducing paradigm when instructed to use a maladaptive emotion regulation strategy when compared with those instructed to use an adaptive strategy or no emotion regulation strategy.

Given the preliminary nature of the research question, the current study aimed to examine competitive intent, a possible precursor to aggression, within a normative college student sample; in addition, three proximal risk factors were examined in an attempt to possibly inform future research directions on relationship aggression. Previous research has suggested that competitive intentions are highly correlated with aggression (Schmierbach, 2010). Specifically, participants displayed significantly more aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, frustration, and violent strategizing when competing against another participant rather than cooperating with them. Similarly, according to the frustration–aggression hypothesis, competition may lead to aggression through the instigation of frustration and negative emotion (Berkowitz, 1962, 1989). There is also evidence to suggest that competition may be a precursor to aggression in interpersonal situations when goal-directed behavior is blocked (Anderson & Morrow, 1995). This frustration may be more likely when there is an attributional target for instigation of the negative emotion or the blocking of the goal. Although much of the research on the frustration–aggression hypothesis has occurred within the realm of video game competition/violence (Williams & Clippinger, 2002), it is argued that the basic premise of the frustration–aggression hypothesis may well inform the current design. Furthermore, Caprara, Passerini, Pastorelli, Renzi, and Zelli (1986) suggested that more subtle forms of aggression align more closely with participants’ negative ratings of a confederate following an insult than aggressive responding. Participants may also be more likely to exhibit subtle forms of aggression in the laboratory because these behaviors may be more socially acceptable, but still offer important information about aggressive intentions (Caprara et al., 1986). Therefore, measuring changes in competitive intent toward and attributions about a target when that target has instigated negative emotion by thwarting goal-directed behavior (i.e., criticizing his performance during a social task) may represent a subtle form of aggression. Due to the preliminary nature of the current study, competitive intent was used as a precursory factor to aggression, which could prove to be an important direction for future research on aggression.

The Current Study

The current study was an experimental pilot investigation to examine the impact of valenced feedback on men’s emotional experience, perceptions of a female confederate, and competitive intent against her following a socially stressful situation. Due to the preliminary nature of the current study, a normative male college student sample was recruited to examine the relationship between the study variables. Furthermore, given that the current study was an initial attempt to examine these underlying processes, competitive intent was assessed as a precursor for aggression. Given that competition has been linked with aggression when goal-directed behavior is blocked, the current social stress task was chosen because of its ability to elicit an emotional experience within the context of a social-performance task. Furthermore, we modified the task to manipulate emotional experience through the provision of positive or negative feedback.

The current study hypothesized that the manipulation of feedback during a social stress task would affect men’s emotional experiences and their positive and negative attributions of a female confederate. Specifically, when the female confederate provided negative feedback (i.e., experimental condition) during the social stress task, participants would report greater negative affect, less positive affect, fewer positive attributions, and more negative attributions from pre to posttest compared with when the female confederate provided positive feedback (i.e., control condition). In addition, it was hypothesized that greater competitive intent against the female confederate would be reported by the participants in the experimental condition compared with the control condition. Furthermore, it was expected that both distal and proximal individual difference factors (i.e., dispositional aggression and hostility, emotion regulation difficulties, and psychopathology symptoms) would account for the greater competitive intent observed between the experimental and control conditions.

Method

Participants

Male college students (N = 110) were recruited through the psychology subject pool at a large Midwestern university. Participants received partial course credit for participation in departmental research. The sample was characteristic of a college sample, with 89% (n = 101) being 22 years old or younger (M = 20 years old). A majority of the participants were Freshman or Sophomore status (60%, n = 66) and identified as White (75%, n = 82). The remaining racial identity of the participants was 8% African American/Black, 7% Arabic/Middle Eastern, 4% Asian, and 7% Multiracial/Other.

Procedure

Participants scheduled an appointment using the online subject pool management system. All participants were asked to wait in a large laboratory room where a female confederate was already waiting. After several minutes of friendly conversation between the participant and confederate, two male research assistants entered the room and explained that they would participate in a mock job interview; one would give a proposal of an ideal job to a panel of judges consisting of the two research assistants and the other participant. Male participants were randomly assigned to the experimental (n = 56) or control condition (n = 54) prior to arriving using a random number generator. In addition, participants were always assigned to propose the ideal job using a rigged drawing. The participant and confederate were escorted to separate lab rooms to complete a pretest questionnaire.

Following the procedures of the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) paradigm (Kirschbaum, Pirke, & Hellhammer, 1993), the participant was given 5 min to prepare a speech for a mock job interview, facilitating anticipatory stress. The participant was then escorted back to the experimental room to present his speech to the panel of judges (i.e., the two male research assistants and female confederate) for 5 min. If the participant finished before the 5 min were over, the female confederate told the participant to continue until 5 min had passed. We modified the TSST to manipulate how the female confederate interacted with the participant in an attempt to alter the participants’ emotional experience. Specifically, the participant was given performance feedback regarding his interview speech. The female confederate’s feedback was relative to experimental (“Your qualifications aren’t really impressive” and “I’m not sure you really put a lot of effort into this interview”) and control (“You seem to have a lot of skills that would be perfect for this kind of job” and “You did a really good job explaining your qualifications and why you would be a good fit”) conditions. The male research assistants’ feedback remained neutral across conditions.

After the interview phase, the participant was prompted to engage in a serial subtraction task counting backward from 1,022 in increments of 13. In the experimental condition, the female confederate would interrupt after each inaccurate response, “Stop. Please start over at 1,022.” Control condition errors were not corrected; both conditions continued until 5 min had passed. The participant and female confederate were then escorted back to their respective lab rooms where they completed a posttest questionnaire. Finally, the participant was debriefed in regard to the true nature of the experiment, and the female confederate was introduced to the participant as a research assistant.

Measures

Positive and negative affect

The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) was used to assess positive and negative affect at both pre and posttest (i.e., after the TSST). Ten adjectives were used to assess both positive affect (e.g., interested, excited, strong, enthusiastic, proud, inspired, determined, attentive, active, and alert; Cronbach’s α = .86 and .90 for the pretest and posttest, respectively) and negative affect (e.g., afraid, jittery, nervous, ashamed, irritable, hostile, scare, distressed, upset, and guilty; Cronbach’s α = .82 and .88 for the pretest and posttest, respectively). Responses were given on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely).

Positive and negative attributions about the confederate

A set of six positive and six negative personality attributes were generated by the authors to assess general positive (e.g., likeable, friendly, attractive, sincere, trustworthy, desirable) and negative (e.g., arrogant, bossy, inconsiderate, greedy, rude, distant/impolite) attributions that the participants made of the female confederate during the study. The attributions were assessed both pre and posttest. Responses were given on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). The item responses were reverse scored and averaged within each valence so that a higher score represented a more positive or more negative attribution. For the Positive Attributions subscale, the Cronbach’s α = .77 and .82 for the pretest and posttest, respectively. For the Negative Attributions subscale, the Cronbach’s α = .93 and .91 for the pretest and posttest, respectively.

Competitive intent

Three items were used to assess the participants’ intent to compete with the female confederate. The same items were assessed at both pretest and posttest. The items were author-generated to assess competitive intent and possible extent the participant may go to achieve a goal (i.e., “I would try to win in a competition against the other participant,” “I don’t think the other person has what it takes to win a competition against myself,” “I would have a no-holds barred approach when negotiating with the other participant”). The items were generated with a larger goal of identifying items that could be used in conjunction with competition tasks beyond the current pilot study. Participants rated their agreement with the three statements using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). The item responses were reverse scored and averaged so that a higher score represented a higher intention to compete against the female confederate. The internal consistencies of the pretest and posttest competitive intent subscales were low, but acceptable for a three item measure; Cronbach’s α = .48 and .69, respectively. A change score was calculated by subtracting the posttest scores from the pretest scores so that higher scores indicated an increase in competitive intent.

General Aggression Questionnaire

Two subscales of the General Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) were used to assess Physical Aggression (nine items) and Hostility (eight items). Example items for physical aggression and hostility were “Once in a while I can’t control the urge to strike another person” and “I wonder why I feel so bitter about things,” respectively. Responses were assessed on a 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree) Likert-type scale. Cronbach’s α = .80 and .76 for the Physical Aggression and Hostility subscales, respectively.

Emotion regulation difficulties

The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz, & Roemer, 2004) was used to assess emotion regulation difficulties. The DERS is a 36-item, self-report measure in which participants rate how often an item applies to their experience on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). Example items include “When I’m upset, my emotions feel overwhelming” and “When I’m upset, I have difficulty controlling my behaviors.” After reverse scoring relevant items, a mean score for all 36 items was calculated. Higher scores indicate greater emotion regulation difficulties. The internal consistency of the scale was excellent; Cronbach’s α = .92.

Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale

To assess depression, anxiety, and stress symptom severity, the 21-item Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS–21; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) was used. The DASS assesses depression, anxiety, and stress symptom severity over the past week using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (did not apply to me at all) to 4 (applied to me very much, or most of the time). Each subscale consists of seven items that assess depression (e.g., “I couldn’t seem to experience any positive feeling at all”), anxiety (e.g., “I was aware of dryness in my mouth”), and stress (e.g., “I found it hard to wind down”). Higher scores indicate greater symptom severity. Internal consistencies for the Depression scale (Cronbach’s α = .87) and Stress scales (Cronbach’s α = .84) were good. The internal consistency for the Anxiety scale was low (Cronbach’s α = .65).

Results

Table 1 presents the correlations, means, and standard deviations of the study variables by experimental condition.

Table 1.

Summary of Intercorrelations, Means, and Standard Deviations for the Study Variables in the Experimental and Control Conditions.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	M	SD
1. Positive affect T1	—	.49**	.35**	.12	.25	.32*	−.09	−.04	.12	−.03	−.08	.11	−.13	−.15	−.01	.10	2.90	0.70
2. Positive affect T2	.72**	—	.13	−.20	−.03	.04	−.19	−.09	.04	.11	−.23	−.09	−.14	−.06	.12	.07	2.78	0.78
3. Negative affect T1	.05	−.10	—	.31*	.22	.15	−.04	.07	−.08	−.15	.20	.30*	.24	.19	.44**	.47*	1.56	0.50
4. Negative affect T2	.04	−.17	.61**	—	−.02	−.06	.13	.16	−.07	−.24	.03	.24	.34*	.37**	.24	.39**	1.89	0.84
5. Positive perception T1	.39	.37**	.15	.28*	—	.79**	−.38**	−.29*	.01	−.06	.03	.20	−.04	.04	.21	.16	5.17	0.60
6. Positive perception T2	.24	.33*	−.03	−.12	.68**	—	−.23	−.30*	.01	−.16	−.02	.05	−.04	.03	.21	.06	5.07	0.65
7. Negative perception T1	−.01	.07	−.14	−.12	−.24	−.12	—	.77**	.25	.26	.09	−.04	.25	.01	.09	.00	2.27	0.92
8. Negative perception T2	.01	.05	−.01	.18	−.15	−.48**	.46**	—	.25	.26	.05	−.04	.20	−.08	.01	.07	2.45	0.85
9. Competition T1	−.16	−.06	−.19	−.13	−.25	−.25	.23	.10	—	.72**	.21	.05	−.08	−.16	−.02	−.02	4.14	0.79
10. Competition T2	−.14	−.08	−.17	−.12	−.31*	−.38**	.29*	.23	.74**	—	−.00	−.14	−.28*	−.25	−.07	−.11	4.03	1.10
11. Physical aggression	−.16	−.12	−.07	.07	.00	.01	−.03	−.02	.23	.36**	—	.46**	.08	.17	.20	.16	2.65	0.84
12. Hostile aggression	−.20	−.24	.38**	.56**	.28*	.06	−.08	.01	−.17	−.12	.31*	—	.34*	.36**	.30*	.39**	2.56	0.72
13. Emotion regulation	−.21	−.27*	.29*	.39**	.05	−.07	−.08	−.07	−.08	.01	.09	.65**	—	.52**	.31*	.38**	2.09	0.47
14. DASS Depression	−.07	−.08	.48**	.53**	.02	−.24	−.09	.22	−.13	.01	−.01	.48**	.58**	—	.53**	.66**	1.57	0.61
15. DASS Anxiety	.08	−.04	.36**	.34*	.23	.18	−.30*	−.13	−.31*	−.22	.42**	.45**	.43**	.42**	—	.67**	1.68	0.47
16. DASS Stress	−.05	−.09	.50**	.52**	.19	.01	−.14	−.03	−.04	.01	.28*	.62**	.65**	.63**	.63**	—	1.84	0.47
M	3.16	2.59	1.55	1.88	5.46	4.82	2.02	2.98	4.30	4.51	2.81	2.61	2.08	1.57	1.62	1.80
SD	0.85	0.99	0.51	0.68	0.78	1.08	0.86	1.21	0.97	1.19	0.85	0.91	0.60	0.57	0.52	0.68

Note. Intercorrelations for participants in the control condition are presented above the diagonal, and intercorrelations for the experimental condition are presented below the diagonal. Means and standard deviations for the control participants are presented in the horizontal rows, and means and standard deviations for the experimental participants are presented in the vertical columns. T1 = pretest; T2 = posttest; DASS = Depression Anxiety Stress Scale.

p < .01. **p < .001.

Positive and Negative Affect

Self-reported positive and negative affect scores were submitted to two separate 2 (condition: experimental vs. control) × 2 (time: pretest vs. posttest) ANOVAs with “time” as a repeated measure. For positive affect, there was a significant Condition × Time interaction, F(1, 108) = 8.05, p = .01, η² = .07. Follow-up t tests within each condition revealed a significant reduction in positive affect from pretest to posttest for the experimental condition, t(55) = 6.14, p < .001, but not for the control condition, t(53) = 1.77, p = .08. For negative affect, there was not a Condition × Time interaction, F(1, 108) = 0.00, p = .96, η² = .00; however, there was a main effect of time, F(1, 108) = 24.07, p < .001, η² = .18. There was a significant increase in negative affect from pretest to posttest across condition groups.

Positive and Negative Attributions About the Confederate

Self-reported positive and negative attributions of the confederate were submitted to two separate 2 (condition: experimental vs. control) × 2 (time: pretest vs. posttest) ANOVAs with “time” as a repeated measure. For positive attributions of the confederate, there was a significant Condition × Time interaction, F(1, 104) = 20.22, p < .001, η²= .16. Follow-up t tests within each condition revealed a significant reduction in positive attributions of the confederate from pretest to posttest for the experimental condition, t(54) = 2.94, p = .01, but not for the control condition, t(53) = −1.59, p = .12. There was also a significant Condition × Time interaction, F(1, 104) = 20.29, p < .001, η²= .16, for the negative attributions of the confederate. Follow-up t tests within each condition revealed a significant increase in negative attributions of the confederate from pretest to posttest for both the experimental condition, t(54) = −6.34, p < .001, and the control condition, t(53) = −2.19, p = .03.

Competitive Intent

First, to examine the effects of the experimental manipulation, participants’ competitive intent scores were submitted to a 2 (condition: experimental vs. control) × 2 (time: pretest vs. posttest) ANOVA with “time” as a repeated measure. There was a significant Condition × Time interaction, F(1, 101) = 4.69, p = .03, η²= .04. Follow-up t tests within each condition revealed a marginal increase (trend) in competitive intent from pretest to posttest for the experimental condition, t(51) = −1.91, p = .06, and no difference in competitive intent from pretest to posttest for the control condition, t(50) = 1.15, p = .26.

Second, to examine whether any of the four individual difference variables moderated the relationship between experimental condition and competitive intent, a series of multiple hierarchical regression analyses were conducted. The competitive intent change score was used as the dependent variable in each analysis and condition was effect coded (control = −1; experimental = 1) and used as the independent predictor. In addition, each analysis examined one individual difference variable while controlling for the other three individual difference variables to account for overlapping variance in the variables. In each analysis, the three individual difference variables were entered on Step 1, while the effect coded condition variable and the individual difference variable of interest were entered on Step 2 and the Condition × Individual Difference variable interaction was entered on Step 3. All individual differences variables were mean centered.

For hostility, there was no significant Condition × Hostility interaction, F(1, 96) = 2.91, p = .09; therefore, no follow-up analyses were conducted. For physical aggression, there was a significant Condition × Physical Aggression interaction, R² = .116, F(1, 96) = 6.11, p = .02. Simple slope analyses (see Aiken & West, 1991) were conducted to dissect the interaction effects. The simple slopes revealed a significant difference between experimental conditions (i.e., control condition vs. experimental condition) for those reporting high physical aggression, β = .37, t = 3.27, p = .00, but not for those reporting low physical aggression, β = −.03, t = −0.26, p = .80 (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Standardized competitive intent change scores at ±1 standard deviation of the physical aggression distribution by experimental condition.

For emotion regulation difficulties, there was a significant Condition × Emotion Regulation Difficulties interaction, R² = .116, F(1, 96) = 6.06, p = .02. Simple slope analyses (see Aiken & West, 1991) were conducted to dissect the interaction effects. The simple slopes revealed a significant difference between experimental conditions (i.e., control condition vs. experimental condition) for those reporting high emotion regulation difficulties, β = .36, t = 3.29, p = .00, but not for those reporting low emotion regulation difficulties, β = −.04, t = −0.70, p = .71 (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Standardized competitive intent change scores at ±1 standard deviation of the difficulties in emotion regulation distribution by experimental condition.

For depression symptom severity, there was a significant Condition × Depression Symptom Severity interaction, R² = .100, F(1, 96) = 4.20, p = .04. Simple slope analyses (see Aiken & West, 1991) were conducted to dissect the interaction effects. The simple slopes revealed a significant difference between experimental conditions (i.e., control condition vs. experimental condition) for those reporting high depression symptom severity, β = .33, t = 2.97, p = .00, but not for those reporting low depression symptom severity, β = .00, t = 0.03, p = .98 (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Standardized competitive intent change scores at ±1 standard deviation of the depression symptom severity distribution by experimental condition.

Discussion

Male-perpetrated aggression against women continues to be an important social issue. Research has identified several distal and proximal risk factors for aggression in survey research; however, experimental investigations into mechanisms for aggression are limited. Although the current study does not claim to have investigated aggression against women directly, or to have emulated the dynamics of an intimate partner interaction in design, it is an initial step to identify important directions for future experimental research. The current study was a pilot investigation of the impact of female-confederate-directed feedback on men’s emotional experience, perceptions of the female confederate, and competitive intent against her, conceptualized as a possible precursor to aggression, following a socially stressful situation. In addition, the influences of several individual difference factors previously found to be related to relationship aggression were examined. It was hypothesized that the manipulation of feedback during the social stress task (i.e., TSST) would affect the participant’s emotional experience and his positive and negative attributions about a female confederate, which would suggest that the induction of social stress was effective.

The first set of hypotheses was partially supported. Men in the experimental condition reported a decrease in positive affect from pre to posttest assessment, while both conditions reported an increase in negative affect. These findings suggest that both conditions likely experienced the TSST as stressful, which resulted in increased negative affect; however, only the experimental condition demonstrated a reduction in positive affect. The change in positive affect in the experimental, but not control, condition would suggest differential emotional experiences from pre to posttest between groups. The pattern of subjective emotional experience observed in the current study replicates previous findings suggesting that the TSST is effective for the manipulation of subjective emotional experience in a socially stressful context (e.g., Mikolajczak, Roy, Luminet, Fillee, & Timary, 2007), with the experimental condition inducing a more “negative” emotional response through the manipulation of both negative and positive affect (see Campbell & Ehlert, 2012, for a review).

In addition, the participants’ positive attributions of the female confederate decreased from pre to posttest in the experimental condition, but there was no change in positive attributions of the female confederate in the control condition. The confederate was likely viewed less positively in the experimental condition due to her providing more negative feedback in the experimental condition, which likely resulted in less favorable attributions about her from pre to posttest assessments. However, the participants’ negative attributions of the female confederate deviated from what was expected in the original hypotheses. There was an increase in participants’ negative attributions of the female confederate in both the control and experimental condition. The pattern of results is interesting given the nature of the manipulation. It was expected that the positive feedback in the control condition and negative feedback in the experimental condition would elicit differential attributions of the female confederate between groups. Interpreted within the context of the changes in subjective emotional experience, both conditions may have viewed the female confederate more negatively because of the stress associated with the task generally, perhaps associating the stress of the task with the confederate. To the authors’ knowledge, there have been no direct investigations of men’s attributions of women within a socially stressful context, which makes interpretation of the findings of the current study quite preliminary. There have been investigations of men’s attributions about a partner’s negative intent within the context of an imagined relationship conflict, where men made more negative attributions of a partner during a gender relevant conflict compared with a gender nonrelevant conflict (Moore & Stuart, 2004). The results suggested negative attributions are more likely to be made in contexts that are perceived as threatening, especially if the threat could be attributed to the participant’s masculinity. The current study was not designed to elicit the same threat toward masculinity and was not conducted within the context of a relationship; however, given that the context was designed to elicit a negative emotional state, the experience may have been experienced as threatening to participants. It is possible that the current results are related to men’s perceptions of threat to their masculinity, which should be specifically examined in future research.

Other possible explanations for the unexpected pattern of attribution findings are that the participants interacted with the female confederate briefly prior to the start of the experiment, which may not have been “adequate” for an initial assessment of her personality. The design of the current study was not to emulate an intimate or romantic relationship; however, more time spent between participant and confederate may yield different results. Second, the negative attribution score distributions should be considered, which indicated a larger change in negative attributions about the female confederate in the experimental versus control condition. Therefore, interpreting the findings together, the overall impression of the female confederate was less favorable from pre to post assessment in the experimental versus control condition.

It is also important to stress that reductions in positive affect and positive attributions are not necessarily equivalent to increases in negative affect and negative attributions. It is suggested from the current findings that reductions in both positive affect and positive attributions in the experimental condition may be more influential than changes in negative affect and negative attributions across both conditions. The changes in positive affect and positive attributions are likely driving the later outcomes in competitive intent; however, this interpretation is based on mere speculation. While there is considerable research to suggest that changes in negative experiences are related to aggressive outcomes (e.g., Donahue, Goranson, McClure, & Van Male, 2014), there is a paucity of research to support how alterations in positive experiences may relate to aggressive outcomes. However, some limited research suggests that exposing participants to positive stimuli following a negative mood induction (i.e., positive erotica) may reduce aggressive outcomes; however, changes in positive affect were not directly measured (White, 1979). While this finding may not be directly relevant to the current, it does lend some initial support to the influence of positive affect on aggressive outcomes.

Finally, we predicted that participants in the experimental condition would report greater competitive intent against the female confederate compared with participants in the control condition. While this hypothesis was not supported, the second set of hypotheses, specific to individual difference factors, expected that dispositional aggression and hostility, emotion regulation difficulties, and psychopathology symptom severity would moderate men’s competitive intent against the female confederate in the experimental condition compared with the control condition. The hypotheses were partially supported.

It was expected that dispositional physical aggression, hostility, emotion regulation difficulties, and psychopathology symptom severity (i.e., depression, anxiety, stress) would result in greater competitive intent in the experimental condition. However, hostility, and anxiety and stress symptoms were not significant. Previous research has demonstrated a relationship between hostility and aggression (Buss & Perry, 1992); however, perhaps the findings do not extend to competitive intent. Furthermore, the assessment of general hostility may not relate to competitive intent against a female confederate the way that gender-specific hostility may relate. In addition, anxiety and stress symptoms may not be related to greater competitive intent in the experimental condition because when provided with negative feedback, participants both high and low in anxiety and stress may have attributed their poor performance to the stressful task. Therefore, the negative evaluations of the female confederate would have been consistent with their interpretations of their performance and not been perceived as negative, resulting in attenuated competitive intent.

Furthermore, differences in competitive intent were observed only in the experimental condition for physical aggression, emotion regulation difficulties (marginally), and depression symptom severity (marginally). Not surprisingly, these three individual difference characteristics have all demonstrated significant associations with relationship violence perpetration (Gratz et al., 2009; Nguyen & Parkhill, 2014; Schumacher et al., 2001); however, it is important to note that the current study did not examine aggression in a relationship context.

Recent research has highlighted the role of emotion regulation in modulating aggressive behavior in imagined social contexts, which has implications for the current findings. Specifically, Maldonado and colleagues (2014) examined whether college students were able to use emotion regulation strategies to effectively reduce the number of aggressive verbalizations during imagined dating scenarios designed to elicit angry responses. When participants were instructed to use an adaptive strategy (i.e., cognitive reappraisal) as opposed to a maladaptive strategy (i.e., expressive suppression) or no strategy, both participants with and without a history of intimate partner aggression made less aggressive verbalizations during the anger scenario. While Maldonado and colleagues did not assess dispositional emotion regulation strategies, the findings do suggest that attempts to use adaptive emotion regulation strategies may reduce aggressive behavior. Specifically, reframing the negative intent or their negative emotional experiences reduces the aggressive responding. When interpreted within the context of the current study, the findings do suggest that when maladaptive strategies are used or when difficulties in emotion regulation are reported, the risk for aggressive behaviors may increase. In other words, the regulatory mechanisms needed for negative emotional states to escalate toward aggressive responding may go unmanaged. Alternatively, aggressive responding may be the maladaptive strategy used by men to manage negative emotional or vulnerable emotional experiences, perhaps as a result of the threat that these emotions have to their self-perceptions of masculinity (Jakupcak, Tull, & Roemer, 2005).

Limitations and Future Directions

The current study is not without limitations. First, the study utilized a college student sample which may limit generalizability to samples of different ages, level of emotional and cognitive functioning, socioeconomic status, and varying experiences with gender-based violence. Therefore, it may be especially important to replicate the study paradigm in clinical or community samples where these factors may be different. Arguably, the associations between factors may be more robust. Second, given that the interaction between the participant and confederate was contrived and there was limited interaction between the participant and confederate, the current findings should be interpreted with caution; however, it should be noted that general aggressive tendencies in a variety of contexts do relate to the perpetration of relationship aggression (Schumacher et al., 2001). Regardless, it cannot and should not be assumed that the interpersonal dynamic created in the current study represents an intimate partner or dating relationship. Future research should examine similar variables within the context of a relationship or allow for an interaction that may mimic a dating scenario. Furthermore, it may be interesting to examine the current study’s paradigm with dating couples to examine the factors within an even more relevant social context. Third, a precursor to aggression (i.e., self-reported competitive intent) was used, which demonstrated low reliability during the pretest. Future studies may need to develop validated state measures of competition in addition to other markers of aggression (e.g., Taylor Aggression Paradigm; Taylor, 1967). Finally, without a male confederate condition, it is difficult to assert that the findings of the current study represent a predominantly gendered effect. Perhaps the findings of the current study represent general patterns of competitive intent rather than a male-to-female pattern. Future research should assess whether the findings of the current study extend to male–male dyads or to female participants prior to making specific conclusions about gender-specific patterns of competitive intent and potential aggressive behavior.

Conclusion

The current findings suggest that dispositional aggression, emotion regulation difficulties, and depression may relate to competitive intent, which was conceptualized as a precursor to aggression. Interestingly, the relationships between dispositional aggression, emotion regulation difficulties, depression, and relationship aggression have been supported in previous survey methodology (Gratz et al., 2009; Nguyen & Parkhill, 2014; Schumacher et al., 2001); however, these variables have not been examined in an experimental design. Although the current study examined competition as a precursor for aggression and examined the expression of competition with a nonintimate partner dyad (i.e., female confederate), the findings demonstrate that individual risk factors previously associated with relationship aggression affected behavior in the moment. Of the limited experimental tasks used in previous research, none have been within a social context in which a target has been at the helm of the social stress (arguably social rejection or the induction of a negative emotional experience through reductions in positive affect) generated as a result of the interaction/task. The findings of the current study are particularly interesting when considered within the context of the manipulation of both emotional experience and attribution of the female confederate. Specifically, the current findings suggest that within a social context in which social stress or rejection is generated, men with higher dispositional aggression, emotion regulation difficulties, or depression symptom severity may change his perception of the source of the stress and be more likely to respond in a competitive way, which could possibly lead to an aggressive response. Future research will need to examine the connection between competitive intent and aggression within this type of social context.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Scott M. Pickett is an assistant professor of Psychology at Oakland University. His research examines the risk and recovery factors associated with psychological trauma, such as emotion regulation strategies and health behaviors (e.g., sleep quality).

Michele R. Parkhill is an assistant professor of Psychology at Oakland University. Her primary research interests concern the predictors and consequences of sexual assault perpetration and victimization, with a particular emphasis on substance use and emotion regulation.

Mitchell Kirwan is a doctoral candidate in Psychology at Oakland University. His primary research interest is emotion regulation and its relationship with a variety of factors, including sexual aggression perpetration, sexual aggression victimization, childhood sexual abuse, social stress, sleep, and others.

Kristin M. Aho is currenty a masters student in the Industrial/Organization program at Wayne State University. She completed the Masters degree in Psychology at Oakland University under the supervision of Scott M. Pickett.

David Nguyen is a doctoral student at the University of Toronto. His current research investigates the neuronal basis of basic motivational processes, with a specific focus on the effects of cocaine exposure on cortico-limbic-striatal systems.

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Anderson

C. A.

Morrow

(1995). Competitive aggression without interaction: Effects of competitive versus cooperative instructions on aggressive behavior in video games. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1020-1030. doi:10.1177/01461672952110003

Berkowitz

(1962). Aggression: A social psychological analysis. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Berkowitz

(1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59-73.

Brower

Price

(2001). Neuropsychiatry of frontal lobe dysfunction in violent and criminal behaviour: A critical review. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, & Psychiatry, 71, 720-726. doi:10.1136/jnnp.71.6.720

Buss

A. H.

Perry

(1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452

Campbell

Ehlert

(2012). Acute psychosocial stress: Does the emotional stress response correspond with physiological responses? Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37, 1111-1134. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2011.12.010

Caprara

G. V.

Passerini

Pastorelli

Renzi

Zelli

(1986). Instigating and measuring interpersonal aggression and hostility: A methodological contribution. Aggressive Behavior, 12, 237-247.

Cornelius

T. L.

Shorey

R. C.

Beebe

S. M.

(2010). Self-reported communication variables and dating violence: Using Gottman’s marital communication conceptualization. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 439-448.

10.

Cummings

E. M.

Davies

(1996). Emotional security as a regulatory process in normal development and the development of psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 123-139. doi:10.1017/S0954579400007008

11.

Desmarais

S. L.

Reeves

K. A.

Nicholls

T. L.

Telford

R. P.

Fiebert

M. S.

(2012). Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships, part 1: Rates of male and female victimization. Partner Abuse, 3, 170-198. doi:10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.170

12.

Donahue

J. J.

Goranson

A. C.

McClure

K. S.

Van Male

L. M.

(2014). Emotion dysregulation, negative affect, and aggression: A moderated, multiple mediator analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 23-28.

13.

Eckhardt

C. I.

Jamison

T. R.

(2002). Articulated thoughts of male dating violence perpetrators during anger arousal. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26, 289-308.

14.

Eckhardt

C. I.

Kassinove

(1998). Articulated cognitive distortions and cognitive deficiencies in maritally violent men. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 12, 231-250.

15.

Fabes

R. A.

Martin

C. L.

(1991). Gender and age stereotypes of emotionality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 532-540. doi:10.1177/0146167291175008

16.

Finkel

E. J.

DeWall

C. N.

Slotter

E. B.

Oaten

Foshee

V. A.

(2009). Self-regulatory failure and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 483-499. doi:10.1037/a0015433

17.

Gratz

K. L.

Paulson

Jakupcak

Tull

M. T.

(2009). Exploring the relationship between childhood maltreatment and intimate partner abuse: Gender differences in the mediating role of emotion dysregulation. Violence and Victims, 24, 68-82. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.24.1.68

18.

Gratz

K. L.

Roemer

(2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26, 41-54. doi:10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94

19.

Gross

J. J.

John

O. P.

(1998). Mapping the domain of expressivity: Multimethod evidence for a hierarchical model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 170-191. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.170

20.

Jakupcak

Salters

Gratz

K. L.

Roemer

(2003). Masculinity and emotionality: An investigation of men’s primary and secondary emotional responding. Sex Roles, 49, 111-120. doi:10.1023/A:1024452728902

21.

Jakupcak

Tull

M. T.

Roemer

(2005). Masculinity, shame, and fear of emotions as predictors of men’s expressions of anger and hostility. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 6, 275-284.

22.

Kirschbaum

Pirke

Hellhammer

D. H.

(1993). The “Trier Social Stress Test”: A tool for investigating psychobiological stress responses in a laboratory setting. Neuropsychobiology, 28, 76-81. doi:10.1159/000119004

23.

Koss

M. P.

Gidycz

C. A.

Wisniewski

(1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.55.2.162

24.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

McCullars

Misra

(2012). Motivations for men and women’s intimate partner violence perpetration: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3, 429-468. doi:10.1891/1946-6560.3.4.429

25.

Linehan

M. M.

(1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

26.

Loh

Orchowski

L. M.

Gidycz

C. A.

Elizaga

R. A.

(2007). Socialization and sexual aggression in college men: The role of observational influence in detecting risk cues. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 8, 129-144. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.8.3.129

27.

Lovibond

S. H.

Lovibond

P. F.

(1995). Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (2nd ed.). Sydney, Australia: Psychology Foundation.

28.

Maldonado

R. C.

DiLillo

Hoffman

(2014). Can college students use emotion regulation strategies to alter intimate partner aggression-risk behaviors? An examination using I3 theory. Psychology of Violence, 5, 46-55. doi:10.1037/a0035454

29.

Mikolajczak

Roy

Luminet

Fillee

Timary

(2007). The moderating impact of emotional intelligence on free cortisol responses to stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32, 1000-1012. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2007.07.009

30.

Moore

T. M.

Stuart

G. L.

(2004). Effects of masculine gender role stress on men’s cognitive, affective, physiological, and aggressive responses to intimate conflict situations. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5, 132-142. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.5.2.132

31.

Muehlenhard

C. L.

Linton

M. A.

(1987). Date rape and sexual aggression in dating situations: Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 186-196. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.34.2.186

32.

Nguyen

Parkhill

M. R.

(2014). Integrating attachment and depression into the confluence model of sexual assault perpetration. Violence Against Women, 20, 994-1011.

33.

Parkhill

M. R.

Abbey

(2008). Does alcohol contribute to the confluence model of sexual assault perpetration? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27, 529-554. doi:10.1521/jscp.2008.27.6.529

34.

Romano

De Luca

R. V.

(2001). Male sexual abuse: A review of effects, abuse characteristics, and links with later psychological functioning. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6, 55-78. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(99)00011-7

35.

Root

S. K.

Denham

S. A.

(2010). The role of gender in the socialization of emotion: Key concepts and critical issues. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2010(128), 1-9. doi:10.1002/cd.265

36.

Schmierbach

(2010). “Killing spree”: Exploring the connection between competitive game play and aggressive cognition. Communication Research, 37, 256-274. doi:10.1177/0093650209356394

37.

Schumacher

J. A.

Feldbau-Kohn

Slep

A. M. S.

Heyman

R. E.

(2001). Risk factors for male-to-female partner physical abuse. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6, 281-352. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(00)00027-6

38.

Seto

M. C.

Barbaree

H. E.

(1995). The role of alcohol in sexual aggression. Clinical Psychology Review, 15, 545-566. doi:10.1016/0272-7358(95)00033-L

39.

Stith

S. M.

Smith

D. B.

Penn

C. E.

Ward

D. B.

Tritt

(2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 65-98. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2003.09.001

40.

Taylor

S. P.

(1967). Aggressive behavior and physiological arousal as a function of provocation and the tendency to inhibit aggression. Journal of Personality, 35, 297-310. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01430.x

41.

Thompson

R. A.

Calkins

S. D.

(1996). The double edged-sword: Emotion regulation for children at risk. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 163-182. doi:10.1017/S0954579400007021

42.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

43.

White

L. A.

(1979). Erotica and aggression: The influence of sexual arousal, positive affect, and negative affect on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 591-601.

44.

Williams

R. B.

Clippinger

C. A.

(2002). Aggression, competition and computer games: Computer and human opponents. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 495-506. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00009-2