Aggressive behavior represents a behavior that is intentionally carried out with the proximate goal of causing harm to another person who is motivated to avoid that harm (Allen, et al.,
2018). Much attention in psychological research is devoted to examine various forms (e.g. direct, indirect) and functions (e.g. reactive, proactive) of aggression (Archer & Coyne,
2005; Little, et al.,
2003). Using a multidimensional approach to aggression is beneficial in understanding the development of aggressive conduct (Girard, et al.,
2019; Kokko & Pulkkinen,
2005), correlates of aggression (Card, et al.,
2008), and the associations between aggressive behaviors and mental health problems (e.g., depression and anxiety; Hayes, et al.,
2021) and personality disorders (Azevedo, et al.,
2020; Schmeelk, et al.,
2008). Currently, there are a number of measures designed to capture the multidimensionality of aggression in children or adolescents (Marsee, et al.,
2011). However, fewer measures assess the forms and functions of aggression in later developmental periods (e.g., emerging adulthood). Given that numerous studies indicate that psychological difficulties and victimization in childhood and adolescence are associated with aggression and partner violence in young adulthood (Leadbeater, et al.,
2017), it is important to have reliable and valid measurement of aggression during this period of life.
One psychometrically sound and valid measure of aggression, namely
the Peer Conflict Scale (Marsee, et al.,
2011), was recently modified for assessment of Portuguese young adults (Vagos, et al.,
2021). The goal of the present study was to validate the Polish version of
the Peer Conflict Scale (PCS) for young adults. We investigated the internal structure of the PCS, its reliability, invariance across gender, and its associations with emotion regulation strategies of cognitive reappraisal and emotional suppression (Gross & John,
2003) and the Dark Triad (Machiavellianism, psychopathy and narcissism) regarded as personality underpinning of aggression (Paulhus, et al.,
2018).
Forms of aggression include mostly overt and indirect forms of aggression, while functions of aggression usually refer to proactive and reactive aggression (Bailey & Ostrov,
2008). Overt aggression consists of behaviors intended to physically or verbally hurt other people, e.g. hitting, kicking, threatening (Card, et al.,
2008; Marsee, et al.,
2011; Vagos, et al.,
2021). Relational aggression – an indirect form of aggression (Archer & Coyne,
2005) – is intended to damage the social status of the victim (e.g. spreading rumors, excluding for the group activities, damaging another person’s friendships; Card, et al.,
2008; Marsee, et al.,
2011; Vagos, et al.,
2021). Regarding its function, aggression can be either reactive (i.e., impulsive) which is anger oriented response to a threat or provocation, or proactive (i.e., premeditated) which is instrumental, goal oriented and often unprovoked (Bailey & Ostrov,
2008; Marsee, et al.,
2011). Combination of forms and functions of aggression results in four categories of aggressive behavior: proactive overt aggression, proactive relational aggression, reactive overt aggression, and reactive relational aggression. These types of aggression differ in intensity (Pechorro, et al.,
2021; Vagos, et al.,
2021), correlates with psychological and social adjustment (Card, et al.,
2008; Evans, et al.,
2021), but also regarding its potential predictors (Kokkinos, et al.,
2020).
Regarding gender differences (Ostrov & Godleski,
2010), boys tend to report higher rates of overt aggression while girls tend to report higher tendency to be relationally aggressive (Card, et al.,
2008). Further studies confirm the differences in overt aggression (Archer,
2004; Card, et al.,
2008) and indicate that they were more pronounced for physical aggression compared to verbal aggressive behaviors (Card, et al.,
2008). Differences in relational aggression were less pronounced (Archer,
2004; Card, et al.,
2008), but some studies find that girls report higher reactive relational than proactive relational aggression compared to boys (Marsee, et al.,
2011). Among young adults, men tend to report more aggression compared to women and the reactive function of aggression prevails for both sexes (Vagos, et al.,
2021).
Emotional states and their regulation play an important role in aggressive conduct (Allen, et al.,
2018). Aggression is associated with both adaptive (e.g. cognitive reappraisal) and maladaptive (e.g. emotion suppression) emotion regulation strategies (Roberton, et al.,
2012; Vega, et al.,
2022). Adaptive emotion regulation strategies could be regarded as inhibitors, while maladaptive emotion regulation strategies play a role of eliciting factors in aggressive behavior (Finkel & Hall,
2018). In general, emotion dysregulation is associated with higher tendency to aggressive conduct (Holley, et al.,
2017; Roberton, et al.,
2012). Although stronger associations were found between emotion dysregulation and physical aggression, the associations between emotion dysregulation and relational aggression were also positive (Hayes, et al.,
2021). Emotion dysregulation was associated with emotion suppression (Westerlund, et al.,
2021), which was higher among individuals reporting high proactive overt and relational aggression (Vagos, et al.,
2021). On the other hand, cognitive reappraisal was associated with less proactive relational aggression (Vagos, et al.,
2021) and less overall intimate partner violence (Maldonado, et al.,
2015). Cognitive reappraisal was also considered as one of the most promising methods of reducing reactive forms of aggression (Denson,
2015).
Individual differences in aggression are also proposed to be strongly correlated with the Dark Triad (Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy) or tetrad (including also sadism) personality traits (Paulhus, et al.,
2018). Although all dark traits share a common core which is callous manipulation (Paulhus, et al.,
2018) or low honesty-humility (Kowalski, et al.,
2021), they differently predicted various forms of aggression (Paulhus, et al.,
2018). Psychopathy tends to correlate with physical aggression, while Machiavellianism was associated more strongly with relational aggression (Paulhus, et al.,
2018). Narcissism was less associated with dispositional aggression, but predicted aggression in ego-threat situations (Jones & Paulhus,
2010). Psychopathy and Machiavellianism were similarly correlated with higher levels of proactive and reactive aggression (Muris, et al.,
2013). Callous and unemotional traits (similar to psychopathy and Machiavellianism) predict proactive aggression, while reactive aggression was more linked to impulsivity (Vaughan, et al.,
2023).
The Peer Conflict Scale
The
Peer Conflict Scale (PCS) was developed by Marsee et al. (
2011) to assess proactive and reactive types of overt aggression and proactive and reactive types of relational aggression. The PCS consists of forty items (10 items per subscale) assessed on five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (
never) to 5 (
always). Previous studies confirmed the correlated four-factor structure of the PCS in long form (40 items; Marsee, et al.,
2011; Vagos, et al.,
2021) and in short form of the PCS (20 items; Pechorro, et al.,
2021). Initially the PCS was designed for adolescents, however it was recently considered valid using young adults sample (Vagos, et al.,
2021). The multidimensional measurement of aggression seems to be important also in this developmental age. For example, both proactive and reactive overt aggression were associated with young adults’ well-being and adjustment (Thomas,
2019). However, the research using a multidimensional approach to aggression in young adulthood are rare (Thomas,
2019) also due to a lack of valid measures of aggression for this age group.
The Present Studies
The goal of the first study was to prepare and validate the Polish version of the PCS for young adults. We investigated the internal structure of the scale testing various models present in the literature for both the long and short form of the PCS (Marsee, et al.,
2011; Pechorro, et al.,
2021; Vagos, et al.,
2021). Following the previous validation studies, we examined the measurement invariance between men and women and investigated gender differences in mean practice of all four forms of aggression. Based on the previous findings, we expected that the four-factor structure of the PCS will have the best fit to data. We also predicted higher reports on aggression among men compared to women (Ostrov & Godleski,
2010). According to the literature on the associations between emotion regulation and aggression, we predicted positive associations between emotion suppression and reactive aggression (Maldonado, et al.,
2015) and negative associations between cognitive appraisal and proactive aggression (Denson,
2015; Maldonado, et al.,
2015; Vagos, et al.,
2021).
The goal of the second study was to confirm the internal structure of the Polish version of the PCS. We aimed also at confirmation of invariance across gender and at investigate the gender differences in aggression. A goal of Study 2 was also to examine its validity by examination of the associations between the PCS and other measures of relational and overt aggression, and the associations between functions and forms of aggression and the Dark Triad (Paulhus, et al.,
2018).
Study 2
The goals of Study 2 were to verify the fit of the four-factor model of the Modified Peer Conflict Scale to the data and to further examine the validity of the scale. Thus, we used confirmatory factor analysis for investigating the competing models of the modified PCS. We predicted that four-factor model of the modified PCS will have the best fit to the data.
In order to establish validity of the scale, we examined its correlations with other measures of direct aggression and relational aggression, but also with the Dark Triad (Machiavellianism, psychopathy and narcissism) which is regarded as personality basis for aggression (Jones & Neria,
2015; Paulhus, et al.,
2018). In the lens of theories of aggression, the Dark Triad could be regarded as impellance factor for aggressive conduct (Finkel & Hall,
2018). Thus, we expected that proactive types of aggression measured by the modified PCS will be positively correlated with other measures of proactive aggression and the Dark Triad (mostly psychopathy), while the reactive forms of aggression measured by the modified PCS will be positively associated with other measures of reactive aggression, but also with psychopathy and Machiavellianism (e.g. Dinić and Wertag,
2018). We also expected that overt forms of aggression will be correlated with verbal aggression, while relational aggression will be positively correlated with other measures of relational aggression.
Additionally, we recruited the participants with a history of detention as known-groups validation analysis of the scale. According to the previous studies (Marsee, et al.,
2011), we expected that individuals with a history of detention will report higher levels of proactive and reactive overt aggression and reactive relational aggression.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.