The Taylor Aggression Paradigm (TAP) is a frequently used laboratory measure of aggression. However, the flexibility inherent in its implementation and analysis can undermine its validity. To test whether the TAP is a valid aggression measure irrespective of this flexibility, we conducted two preregistered studies (Study 1 n = 177, Study 2 n = 167) of a standardized version of the TAP. Across both studies, TAP scores showed agreement with other laboratory aggression measures, were magnified by an experimental provocation manipulation, and were associated with traits typically linked to aggressive behavior. Mixed evidence was found for the external and discriminant validity of the task. Individual responses largely loaded onto a single component, suggesting that the aggregate scoring approach accurately represents the underlying data structure. These results provide preliminary support for the internal validity of this TAP approach and highlight the utility of preregistration in psychometric research.
AndersonC. A.BushmanB. J. (1997). External validity of “trivial” experiments: The case of laboratory aggression. Review of General Psychology, 1, 19–41.
2.
AndersonC. A.MurphyC. R. (2003). Violent video games and aggressive behavior in young women. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 423–429.
3.
ArcherJ. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651.
4.
BernsteinS.RichardsonD.HammockG. (1987). Convergent and discriminant validity of the Taylor and Buss measures of physical aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 13, 15–24.
5.
BondA.LaderM. (1986). A method to elicit aggressive feelings and behaviour via provocation. Biological Psychology, 22, 69–79.
6.
BushmanB. J. (1995). Moderating role of trait aggressiveness in the effects of violent media on aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 950–960.
7.
BushmanB. J.BaumeisterR. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219–229.
8.
ChesterD. S.DeWallC. N. (2016). The pleasure of revenge: Retaliatory aggression arises from a neural imbalance toward reward. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11, 1173–1182.
9.
ChesterD. S.DeWallC. N. (2017). Combating the sting of rejection with the pleasure of revenge: A new look at how emotion shapes aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 413–430.
10.
ChesterD. S.WhittZ. T.DavisT. S.DeWallC. N. (2017). The voodoo doll self-injury task: A new measure of sub-clinical self-harm tendencies. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 36, 554–578.
11.
CostaP. T.MacCraeR. R. (1992). NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual (Rev. ed.). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Incorporated.
12.
CurranP. J.HussongA. M. (2009). Integrative data analysis: the simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets. Psychological Methods, 14, 81–100.
13.
DensonT. F.von HippelW.KempR. I.TeoL. S. (2010). Glucose consumption decreases impulsive aggression in response to provocation in aggressive individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1023–1028.
14.
DeWallC. N.FinkelE. J.LambertN. M.SlotterE. B.BodenhausenG. V.PondR. S.…FinchamF. D. (2013). The voodoo doll task: Introducing and validating a novel method for studying aggressive inclinations. Aggressive Behavior, 39, 419–439.
15.
ElsonM.MohseniM. R.BreuerJ.ScharkowM.QuandtT. (2014). Press CRTT to measure aggressive behavior: The unstandardized use of the competitive reaction time task in aggression research. Psychological Assessment, 26, 419.
16.
EpsteinS.TaylorS. P. (1967). Instigation to aggression as a function of degree of defeat and perceived aggressive intent of the opponent1. Journal of Personality, 35, 265–289.
17.
FergusonC. J.SmithS.Miller-StrattonH.FritzS.HeinrichE. (2008). Aggression in the laboratory: Problems with the validity of the modified Taylor competitive reaction time test as a measure of aggression in media violence studies. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 17, 118–132.
18.
GiancolaP. R.ParrottD. J. (2008). Further evidence for the validity of the Taylor aggression paradigm. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 214–229.
19.
GiancolaP. R.ZeichnerA. (1995). Construct validity of a competitive reaction-time aggression paradigm. Aggressive Behavior, 21, 199–204.
20.
GloverN.MillerJ. D.LynamD. R.CregoC.WidigerT. A. (2012). The five-factor narcissism inventory: A five-factor measure of narcissistic personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 500–512.
21.
GohJ. X.HallJ. A.RosenthalR. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 535–549.
22.
JonesD. N.PaulhusD. L. (2014). Introducing the short dark triad (SD3) a brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21, 28–41.
23.
LiebermanJ. D.SolomonS.GreenbergJ.McGregorH. A. (1999). A hot new way to measure aggression: Hot sauce allocation. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 331–348.
24.
MillerJ. D.LynamD. R.McCainJ. L.FewL. R.CregoC.WidigerT. A.CampbellW. K. (2016). Thinking structurally: A test of the factor structure of the five-factor narcissism inventory. Journal of Personality Disorders, 30, 1–18.
25.
MuehlenkampJ. J.GutierrezP. M. (2007). Risk for suicide attempts among adolescents who engage in non-suicidal self-injury. Archives of Suicide Research, 11, 69–82.
26.
PaulhusD. L.NeumannC. S.HareR. D. (2009). Manual for the self-report psychopathy scale. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
27.
RozinP.MillmanL.NemeroffC. (1986). Operation of the laws of sympathetic magic in disgust and other domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 703–712.
28.
SaleemM.BarlettC. P.AndersonC. A.HawkinsI. (2017). Helping and hurting others: person and situation effects on aggressive and prosocial behavior as assessed by the tangram task. Aggressive Behavior, 43, 133–146.
29.
ShortellJ.EpsteinS.TaylorS. P. (1970). Instigation to aggression as a function of degree of defeat and the capacity for massive retaliation. Journal of Personality, 38, 313–328.
30.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.
31.
TaylorS. P. (1967). Aggressive behavior and physiological arousal as a function of provocation and the tendency to inhibit aggression. Journal of Personality, 35, 297–310.
32.
TedeschiJ. T.QuigleyB. M. (1996). Limitations of laboratory paradigms for studying aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 163–177.
33.
TedeschiJ. T.QuigleyB. M. (2000). A further comment on the construct validity of laboratory aggression paradigms: A response to Giancola and Chermack. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 127–136.
34.
VizeC. E.CollisonK. L.CroweM. L.CampbellW. K.MillerJ. D.LynamD. R. (in press). Using dominance analysis to decompose narcissism and its relation to aggression and externalizing outcomes. Assessment.
35.
WagenmakersE.-J.WetzelsR.BorsboomD.van der MaasH. L. J.KievitR. A. (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 632–638.
36.
WebsterG. D.DeWallC. N.PondR. S.DeckmanT.JonasonP. K.LeB. M.…BatorR. J. (2014). The brief aggression questionnaire: Psychometric and behavioral evidence for an efficient measure of trait aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 120–139.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
