Limitations of laboratory paradigms for studying aggression

• Published in: Aggression and violent behavior 1996-06, Vol.1 (2), p.163-177
• Main Authors: Tedeschi, James T., Quigley, Brian M.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 1359-1789; 1873-6335
• DOI: 10.1016/1359-1789(95)00014-3

The construct validity of four laboratory paradigms used in studying aggression (the teacher/learner, essay evaluation, competitive reaction time game, and Bobo modeling paradigms) is examined. It is argued that the first three paradigms under-represent the construct of aggression because they deal only with situations of retaliation which have been sanctioned by a third party legitimate authority (the experimenter) and because research participants are given no choice other than physical forms of harm-doing as a means of responding to attacks. Additionally, the teacher/learner and essay evaluation paradigms employ cover stories which make the research participants' intentions and motivations unclear or even counter to the proposed theory. The Bobo modeling paradigm may not examine aggression at all, rather, imitative behavior of “rough and tumble play” in which there is no intent to harm. It is proposed that the focus of research on aggression should be the intentions and motivations of the actor rather than simple attack-retaliation situations. Future research needs to examine the motivations of subjects in the traditional paradigms to determine if they are situations in which participants intend to cause harm. Additionally, in order to examine the full range of phenomena which aggression theorists wish to explain, a multimethod approach combining both laboratory and non-laboratory studies must be utilized.