Understanding Aggressive and Violent Cognition Using Implicit and Explicit Measures

Abstract

The primary aim of this thesis was to investigate the automatic cognitive processes involved in aggression, using both implicit and explicit measures. To address this research aim, four studies are presented, each designed to address theoretical and methodological questions about using the IAT to examine aggressive cognition. Study l investigated the degree to which high and low aggressive people automatically associated themselves vs. others with violence relevant stimuli. Subjects completed a practice IAT task, an IAT measuring associations between Weapons, Warnings, Self and Other, and a number of questionnaires measuring explicit attitudes to violence, explicit associations with Weapons and Warnings, and self-reported aggressive behaviour. The results showed that people who were high in trait aggression were marginally more likely to implicitly associate Other and Weapons than subjects who were low in trait aggression. Furthermore, men demonstrated a stronger implicit ratings of their association with weapons predicted an implicit association between Self and Weapons. When order of the IAT conditions was taken into account, people who automatically linked their self-concept with weapons tended to have stronger criminally violent attitudes. Study 2 examined the implicit evaluation of violence as positive. Subjects again completed a practice IAT measuring associations between Violence, Illness, Good and Bad, and a variety of explicit questionnaire measures. The results showed that subjects who were high in trait aggression were no more likely to implicitly evaluate violence as positive than low aggression subjects. In addition, while men were marginally more positive towards violence the IAT than women were, gender was ultimately not a significant predictor of implicit attitudes when other factors were considered. There was also no consistent relationship between the IAT and explicit violence-supportive attitudes and beliefs. However, when violence-supportive attitudes on the CAVS were considered as separate factors, endorsement of the idea that men should fight to resolve conflict was a weak predictor of reduced implicit negativity towards violence on the IAT. The objectives of Study 3 were twofold. This study examined consistency of the relationship between implicit and explicit measures across to the Violence contrast category in the IAT. It also aimed to examine implicit motivation towards violence-related stimuli. Again, subjects completed two IATs, followed by a bundle of explicit measures. In Study 3a, the IATs measured associations between Violence, Affection, Approach and Avoid. Study 3b measured identical associations, except that Affection was replaced with Housework. The results indicated that there was no relationship between implicit attitudes towards violence on the IATs and explicit attitudinal, trait and behavioural measures of aggression and impulsiveness, with one exception. Endorsement of the use of violence as a means to achieve goals predicted implicit motivational tendency towards violence. Changing the contrast category across studies did not change the overall pattern of results described above, though it played a role in gender differences. In Study 3a, women were more implicitly positive towards violence than men; in Study 3b, men were more implicitly positive towards violence than women. Women’s implicit and explicit were more consistent compared to men’s, in both studies. Taken together, the together, the results from these four studies suggest that there are individual differences in the degree to which people implicitly associate violence with the self, or implicitly evaluate violence as positive. These implicit associations have an inconsistent relationship with explicit attitudes towards violence, self-reported aggressive behaviour, and gender.