This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1073191108318250v1 15/4/493    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Verona, E. Articles by Bhattacharjee, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Verona, E. Articles by Bhattacharjee, A. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Self-Reported Use of Different Forms of Aggression in Late Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood

University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, everona{at}uiuc.edu

Naomi Sadeh

University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign

Steve M. Case

Kent State University

Americus Reed, II

University of Pennsylvania

Amit Bhattacharjee

University of Pennsylvania

Two studies investigated the psychometric properties of a self-report measure of commonly recognized forms of aggression (FOA) that could be used to efficiently gather aggression data in large samples. EFA and CFA in Study 1 suggested that a five-factor model (Physical, Property, Verbal, Relational, and Passive—Rational) best represented the data across high school and college students. However, factor analyses in Study 2 using an ethnically diverse university sample revealed a four-factor solution (combining Physical and Property items). As a confirmation of the construct validity of FOA, physical and property aggression were lower, and verbal and passive—rational aggression were higher in college versus high school students. Gender differences were observed across FOA subscales, except relational aggression. FOA subscales correlated as expected with other anger and personality scales. Overall, the data revealed adequate psychometric properties for the FOA and suggest that current category distinctions (e.g., direct—indirect) may not adequately account for different forms of aggression. Researchers may want to reevaluate these categories.

Key Words: physical aggression • verbal aggression • indirect aggression • relational aggression • gender

This version was published on December 1, 2008

Assessment, Vol. 15, No. 4, 493-510 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1073191108318250


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?