TThhee UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff SSoouutthheerrnn MMiissssiissssiippppii TThhee AAqquuiillaa DDiiggiittaall CCoommmmuunniittyy Dissertations Summer 8-2013 FFuurrtthheerr AAnnaallyyssiiss ooff tthhee CCoommppeettiittiivvee PPrroossoocciiaall//AAggggrreessssiioonn CCoonnttiinnuuuumm TTaasskk Alexander Mark Biondolillo University of Southern Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations Part of the Clinical Psychology Commons RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn Biondolillo, Alexander Mark, "Further Analysis of the Competitive Prosocial/Aggression Continuum Task" (2013). Dissertations. 160. https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/160 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The University of Southern Mississippi FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THE COMPETITIVE PROSOCIAL/AGGRESSION CONTINUUM TASK by Alexander Mark Biondolillo Abstract of a Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of The University of Southern Mississippi in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2013 ABSTRACT FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THE COMPETITIVE PROSOCIAL/AGGRESSION CONTINUUM TASK by Alexander Mark Biondolillo August 2013 The Competitive Prosocial/Aggression Continuum Task (COMPACT) (Biondolillo, 2010) was developed in order to create an improved reaction time paradigm for aggression that reduces demand characteristics and increases the scope of research applications available in previous designs by using a behavioral response palette of both aversive and pleasant auditory stimuli to model both aggressive and prosocial behaviors. Initial validation research on the COMPACT demonstrated significant correlations between aggressive responding and several scales of interest; however, such correlations demonstrated smaller effects than the medium-sized effects predicted based on the literature available on similar reaction time paradigms, and pleasant response options on the COMPACT had not been shown to function as a valid measure of prosocial tendency. Thus, the primary goal of this project was to further develop the construct validity of the COMPACT, with particular emphasis on the impact of recent program modifications, including different opponent stimuli sets (aggressive vs. prosocial opponent) and the addition of extreme response options. This study establishes significant evidence justifying the use of the COMPACT as a behavioral measure of aggressive and prosocial behavior, and it demonstrates significant differences in responding and patterns of convergent and discriminant validity based on manipulation of the opponent behavior. ii COPYRIGHT BY ALEXANDER MARK BIONDOLILLO 2013 The University of Southern Mississippi FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THE COMPETITIVE PROSOCIAL/AGGRESSION CONTINUUM TASK by Alexander Mark Biondolillo A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of The University of Southern Mississippi in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Approved: _Tammy F. Greer_____________________ Director _Randolph C. Arnau___________________ _Tammy D. Barry_____________________ _Bradley A. Green____________________ _Susan A. Siltanen____________________ Dean of the Graduate School August 2013 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like give special thanks to my dissertation director, Dr. Tammy Greer, whose expertise, guidance, and occasional pressure helped me keep the ball rolling throughout the project. I would also like to thank the other committee members, Dr. Randolph Arnau, Dr. Bradley Green, and Dr. Tammy Barry, for their advice and support throughout the duration of this project. Furthermore, I'd like to acknowledge the other lab students who were extremely helpful with data collection for this project: Shirley Hodges, Jenny Morris Mason, Troy Yost, Briana Edison, Kyle Nixon, and Joshua Bowling. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................v LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS...........................................................................................viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................ix CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................1 Problem Statement Significance of the Study Review of Related Literature Research Hypotheses II. METHODS.................................................................................................16 Participants Measures Procedure III. RESULTS..................................................................................................27 Further Analysis of COMPACT Measures from Biondolillo (2010) Validation Factor Model Validity of Extreme Responses Additional COMPACT Measures Influence of Opponent Type and Participant Sex on Scale Validity Participant Feedback IV. DISCUSSION .......................................................................................77 Limitations of the Study Summary APPENDIXES...................................................................................................................85 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................99 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1a. Means and Standard Deviations of Measures – By Gender..................................27 1b. Means and Standard Deviations of Measures – By Opponent Behavior...............29 1c. Means and Standard Deviations of Measures – By Gender x Opponent ..............30 2a. Intercorrelations of COMPACT Measures............................................................32 2b. Intercorrelations of Self-Report Validation Measures...........................................33 2c. Correlations of COMPACT Measures with Self-Report Validation Measures – Total Sample..........................................................................................................34 2d. Correlations of COMPACT Measures with Self-Report Validation Measures – vs. Aversive............................................................................................................35 2e. Correlations of COMPACT Measures with Self-Report Validation Measures – vs. Pleasant.............................................................................................................36 3a. Convergent/Divergent Validity of COMPACT Scales – vs. Aversive..................38 3b. Convergent/Divergent Validity of COMPACT Scales – vs. Pleasant...................39 4. Varimax Rotated Component Matrix of All Validation Measures........................42 5. Varimax Rotated Component Matrix of Validation Measures – Simple Structures Only..........................................................................................43 6a. Correlations between Validation Factors and COMPACT – Total Sample..........................................................................................................44 6b. Correlations between Validation Factors and COMPACT – Total Sample by Gender........................................................................................45 6c. Correlations between Validation Factors and COMPACT – vs. Aversive............................................................................................................46 6d. Correlations between Validation Factors and COMPACT – vs. Aversive by Gender..........................................................................................47 v 6e. Correlations between Validation Factors and COMPACT – vs. Pleasant.............................................................................................................48 6f. Correlations between Validation Factors and COMPACT – vs. Pleasant by Gender...........................................................................................49 7. Results from Moderated Multiple Regression with COMPACT M as Criterion C and Self-report Validation Factors, Opponent Behavior Group, and Participant Sex as Predictors....................................................................................................51 8. Results from Moderated Multiple Regression with COMPACT S1 as Criterion and Self-report Validation Factors, Opponent Behavior Group, and Participant Sex as Predictors....................................................................................................52 9. Results from Moderated Multiple Regression with COMPACT M as Criterion A and Self-report Validation Factors, Opponent Behavior Group, and Participant Sex as Predictors....................................................................................................54 10. Results from Moderated Multiple Regression with COMPACT %A as Criterion and Self-report Validation Factors, Opponent Behavior Group, and Participant Sex as Predictors....................................................................................................55 11. Results from Moderated Multiple Regression with COMPACT ΣA as Criterion and Self-report Validation Factors, Opponent Behavior Group, and Participant Sex as Predictors....................................................................................................56 12. Results from Moderated Multiple Regression with COMPACT %A5 as Criterion and Self-report Validation Factors, Opponent Behavior Group, and Participant Sex as Predictors....................................................................................................57 13. Simple Slope Differences for Significant 3-way Interaction Effect......................58 14. Results from Moderated Multiple Regression with COMPACT %A9 as Criterion and Self-report Validation Factors, Opponent Behavior Group, and Participant Sex as Predictors....................................................................................................60 15. Results from Moderated Multiple Regression with COMPACT M as Criterion P and Self-report Validation Factors, Opponent Behavior Group, and Participant Sex as Predictors....................................................................................................61 16. Results from Moderated Multiple Regression with COMPACT %P as Criterion and Self-report Validation Factors, Opponent Behavior Group, and Participant Sex as Predictors....................................................................................................62 vi 17. Results from Moderated Multiple Regression with COMPACT ΣP as Criterion and Self-report Validation Factors, Opponent Behavior Group, and Participant Sex as Predictors....................................................................................................63 18. Results from Moderated Multiple Regression with COMPACT %P5 as Criterion and Self-report Validation Factors, Opponent Behavior Group, and Participant Sex as Predictors....................................................................................................64 19. Results from Moderated Multiple Regression with COMPACT %P9 as Criterion and Self-report Validation Factors, Opponent Behavior Group, and Participant Sex as Predictors....................................................................................................66 20. Results from Moderated Multiple Regression with COMPACT %0 as Criterion and Self-report Validation Factors, Opponent Behavior Group, and Participant Sex as Predictors....................................................................................................67 21. Debriefing Questionnaire: Responses to Likert Items – Total Sample..................68 22. Debriefing Questionnaire: Responses to Likert Items – By Group.......................69 23. Debriefing Questionnaire: Frequency (%) of Written Descriptions of Opponent................................................................................................................71 24. Debriefing Questionnaire: Frequency (%) of Written Descriptions of How Participants Felt Due to Opponent Behavior................................................72 25. Debriefing Questionnaire: Frequency (%) of Written Descriptions of Opponent's Intentions............................................................................................74 26. Debriefing Questionnaire: Frequency (%) of Written Descriptions of the Purpose of the Study........................................................................................75 vii