Threatened Egotism, Narcissism, Self Esteem, And Direct and Displaced Aggression Does Selflove or Selfhate Lead to Violence

8/6/2019 Threatened Egotism, Narcissism, Self Esteem, And Direct and Displaced Aggression Does Selflove or Selfhate Lead to Violence

1/11

Journal of Pea-sonality and Social Psychology Copyright 1998 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.1998, Vol . 75 , No. 1 ,21 9-2 29 0022-3514498/$3.00

T h r e a t e n e d E g o t i s m , N a r c i s s i sm , S e l f - E s t e e m , a n d D i r e c t a nd D i s p l a c e dA g g r e s s i o n : D o e s S e l f - L o v e o r S e l f -H a t e L e a d t o V i o l e n c e ?

B r a d J . B u s h m a nIowa State University R o y F . B a u m e i s t e rCase Western Reserve UniversityIt has been widely asserted that low self-esteem causes violence, but laboratory evidence is lacking,and some contrary observations have characterized aggressors as having favorable self-opinions. In2 studies, both simple self-esteem and narcissism were measured, and then individual participantswere given an opportunity to aggress against someone who had insulted them or praised them oragainst an innocent third person. Self-esteem proved irrelevant to aggression. The combination ofnarcissism and insult led to exceptionally high levels of aggression toward the source of the insult.Neither form of self-regard affected displaced aggression, which was low in general. These findingscontradict the popular view that low self-esteem causes aggression and point instead toward threat-ened egotism as an important cause.

How do p eople's thoughts and feelings about themselves in-fluence their propensities to perform acts of aggression againstothers? Multiple answers to this question can be suggested. FOrdecades, clinical psychologists have subscribed to a conven-tiona l view that low self-esteem underlies aggression. Yet this isdifficult to reconcile with common observations that aggressorsoften think very highly of themselves, as evidenced by national-istic imperialism, "master rac e" ideologies, aristocratic duel-ing, playground bullies, and street gang rhetoric.

The present research was designed to test the opposing pre-dictions about the link between self-views and hostile aggres-sion. Perhaps surprisingly, the psychology of aggression lackspublished laboratory experimental findings on whether self-loveor self-hate contributes more to aggressive behavior. One possi-ble reason is that many studies on aggression were conductedbefore trait differences in self-esteem, narcissism, and similarself-opinions became widely used in research. Alternatively, itmay be that researchers have tried but failed to find a directlink. If violent acts are indeed committed by only a small subsetof people with favorable self-views, then a simple measure ofself-esteem might not show direct correlations with aggression.

Self-Esteem, Threat, and AggressionIn recent decades, American society has come to look on self-

esteem as an unmitigated good and as a cure for a broad variety

Brad J. Bushman, DeparUnentof Psychology, Iowa State University;Roy E Baumeister, Department of Psychology, Case Western ReserveUniversity.We acknowledge the support of National Institutes of Health GrantMH-51482.We thank Dan Russell for his help with the LISREL analyses andStacy Burrell, Robin Hunn, Deanna Mackey, Tari Mellinger, CatharineOien, Yuko Sasaki, Diane Sidari, Cassandra Skuster, Molly Steffen, andDawn Stevenson for serving as experimenters.Correspondence concerning this article should he addressed to BradJ. Bushman, Department of Psychology, Iowa State University,Ames,Iowa 50011-3180. Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected].

of personal and social problems (e.g., California Task Force,1990). Consistent with this view, it has been widely assertedthat low self-esteem is a cause of violence (e.g., Kirschner,1992; Long, 1990; Oates & Forrest, 1985; Schoenfeld, 1988;Wiehe, 1991). According to this theory, certain people areprompted by their inner self-doubts and self-dislike to lash outagainst other people, possibly as a way of gaining esteem orsimply because they have nothing to lose.

A contrary view was proposed by Baumeister, Smart, andBoden (1996). On the basis of an interdisciplinary review ofresearch findings regarding violent, aggressive behavior, theyproposed that violence tends to result from very positive viewsof self that are impu gned or threatened by others. In this analy-sis, hostile aggression was an expression of the se lf' s rejectionof esteem-threatening evaluations received from other people.They noted that the evidence does not suggest a direct link fromhigh self-esteem to violence, and indeed some people with highself-esteem are exceptionally nonaggressive; in general, how-ever, aggressive people form one subset of people with highlyfavorable, even inflated opinions of themselves.

Stability of self-esteem may form one moderator. Kernis,Granneman n, and Barclay (1989) showed that people with highbut unstabl e (i.e., subject to daily fluctuations) self-esteem re-ported the highest tendencies toward hostil ity and anger, whereaspeople with stable high self-esteem reported the lowest. Highself-esteem may thus be a heterogeneous category with links toboth extremes of behavior (i.e., violent and nonviole nt), whichcould help account for the lack of published findings about self-esteem and aggression (see also Kernis, Cornell , Sun, Berry, &Harlow, 1993). High, stable self-esteem may be indifferent oreven impervious to ego threat, because on e's self-love remainsthe same no matter what happens, and so hostility is minimal.In contrast, high but unstable self-esteem would produce height-ened sensitivity to ego threats, because the individual has muchto lose and is vulnerable to the miserable feeling of a br ief dropin self-esteem, and so his or her sensitivity may lead to maximalhostility (see also Kernis, 1993).

Prior work thus offers competing predictions about the effects219


2/11

22 0 BUSHMAN AND BAUMEISTERof self-esteem on aggression. One is that people with low self-esteem would show the highest levels of aggression. Another isthat people with high self-esteem who receive an insul ting orthreatening evaluation would be most aggressive. A third is thatthe most aggressive responses would be made by a subcategoryof people with high self-esteem (and in response to esteemthreat). The quest for aggressive subcategories of high self-esteem brought us to the trait of narcissism, to which we nowturn.

Narcissism and Threatened EgotismNarciss ism offers another approach to exami ning the possible

link between egotism and hostile aggression. If threatened ego-tism is indeed the crucial cause of violence, then one may predictthat vulnerabil ity to ego threats would be the feature of self-regard most relevant to aggression. In particular, inflated, gran-diose, or unjustified favorable views of self should be mostprone to causing aggression, because they will encounter themost threats and be chronically most intolerant of them(Baumeister et al., 1996). These conceptions of excessive self-love are relevant to narcissism, a term coined by Freud in honorof the mythical Greek character Narcissus, who fell in love withhis own image reflected in water. Although Kernberg (1975)insisted that "the nature of normal and pathological narcissismcan be ascertained only by psychoanalytic exploration" (p.327), trait scales have been developed and have facilitated theemergence of an empirically based understanding (Emmons,1987; Raskin & Hall, 1979; Raskin & Terry, 1988).

There are several possible ways to conceptual ize the relation-ship between narcissism and self-esteem. One possibility wouldbe that narc issism is simply an exaggerated form of self-esteem,possibly with a more emotional than cognitive character (i.e.,the person may have inordinate self-love without firmly holdingcognitive beliefs in his or her superior qualities). This view fitsthe myth of Narcissus as well as the characterization by Kohut(1971) and Kernberg (1975) of narcissism as libidinal invest-ment in the self. A related view would be that na rcissi sm is onesubcategory of high self-esteem. In particular, it is plausiblethat narcissists might have inflated self-esteem, unlike otherpeople whose high self-esteem is well founded.

Another view is that narcissism involves unstable high self-esteem, which has been linked to hostility (Kerni s et al., 1989).Consistent with this last view, Rhodewalt, Madrian, and Cheney(1997) found significant correlations between narcissism andinstab ility of self-esteem, although the correlations were not sohigh as to indicate that the two are the same. Moreover, theirdata linked narcissism more strongly to instability of self-esteemthan to high self-esteem per se.

Correlations between narcissism and self-esteem have variedsubstanti ally across studies, making it necessary to consider thepossibility that there are some narcissists with low self-esteem.According to analyses by Kohut (197 1) and Kernberg (1975),there are at least two ways that a narcissist could score low inself-esteem. One is that the narcissist may be defensive, so heor she develops a veneer of high self-regard that is nonethelesshollow or brittle because it conceals underlying feelings of inse-curity and low self-esteem. The other is that the narcissisticself-love may be an emotional, immature holdover from early

development, so the person may remain emot ionally invested ina grandiose self-image despite also having developed a lessfavorable (and presumably more accurate) self-appraisal. Ineffect, the person holds two unrelated sets of views about theself, possib ly with the aid of unconscious processes or dissocia-tions, so that "haughty grandiosity, shyness, and feelings ofinferiority may co-exist in narcissistic personalities without af-fecting each other" (Kernberg, 1975, p. 331 ).

In a sense, then, narciss ism may be less a matter of having afirm conviction about one's overall goodness (which is self-esteem in a literal sense) than a matter of being emotionallyinvested in establi shing one' s superiority. It may, in other words,be more a matter of motivation and emotion than of cognitionper se: Narcissists care passionately about being superior toothers, even if they are not yet co nvinc ed that they have achievedthis superiority. Hence, high or low levels of narcissism couldbe found together with either high or low self-esteem. This viewresembles the one suggested by Raskin, Novacek, and Hogan( 1991 ) and Mor f and Rhodewalt ( 1993 ), who focused on narci s-sism as an attempt to regulate self-esteem. The social behaviorof narcissists may be geared toward maximizing self-esteem(e.g., by gaining the approval and admiration of others) as partof the quest to validate their grandiose self-image.

There is ample reason to suggest that narcissism could beassociated w ith increased aggression, especially in response toinsults or other negative evaluations. On theoretical and clinicalgrounds, Kernberg (1975) proposed that narcissism includespatterns of rage that began in response to parental rejection, andreject ion by others during adulthood could reactivate that rage.Millon (1981) proposed, contrary to Kernberg's view, that nar-cissism stems from an individual having parents who overvaluedhim or her as a child and instilled an inflated sense of entitlementand deservingness, which clearly could generate rage wheneverevents fail to confirm this inflated sense. Such aggressive re-sponses seem parall el to patterns of shame-based rage that haverecently be en demons trated (Tangney, 1995; Tangney, Wagner,Fletcher, & Gramzow, 1992). Kernberg (1975) observed thatnarcissists seem inordinately sensitive to slight insults or criti-cism, and they are prone to react with hostility.

Questionnair e studies have yielded some positive correlat ionsbetween narcissism and aggressiveness or hostility (Raskin etal., 1991; Wink, 1991). Emmons (1987) linked narcissism toextreme emotional lability and strong reactions, which couldwell include anger and rage that might increase aggressive ten-dencies. Rhodewalt and Morf ( 1995 ) found a signif icant correla-tion between narcissi sm and hostility. In a subsequent work,Rhodewalt and Morf (in press) showed that, when initi al successwas followed by failure feedback, narcissists became exception-ally angry, in part because they made internal attributions forthe success and then presumably believed that these flatteringconclusions about themselves were jeopardized by the subse-quent failure. Meanwhile, some factors that normally restrainaggression also seem to be deficient in narcissists, insofar asnarcissism is correlated with disinhibiting endencies (Emmons,1984) and low empathy (Watson, Grisham, Trotter, & Biderman,1984). All of these findings suggest that aggression should behigh among narcissists, particularly when their anger is pro-voked by criticism or any other esteem threat.


3/11

D O E S S E L F -L O V E O R S E L F - H A T E L E A D T O V I O L E N C E ? 221T h r e a t , D i s p l a c e m e n t , a n d P r e d i c ti o n s

T h e m a i n p r e d i c t i o n f o r t h e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h w a s t h a t t h ec o m b i n a t i o n o f h i g h n a r c i ss i s m a n d e g o t h r e a t w o u l d l e a d t oe x c e p t i o n a l l y h i g h l e v e l s o f a g g r e s s i o n . T h a t i s , n a r c is s i s ts w h or e c e i v e d n e g a t i v e i n t e r p e r s o n a l f e e d b a c k w o u l d b e s t r o n g l y i n -c l i n e d t o r e s p o n d w i t h a g g r e s s i o n t o w a r d t h e s o u r c e o f t h i sf e e d b a c k .

A l t h o u g h t h i s w a s t h e m a i n p r e d i c t i o n , s e v e r a l a d d i ti o n a lh y p o t h e s e s a n d t h e o r e t i c a l is s u e s w e r e i n v e s t i g a t e d . W e i n c l u d e db o t h s e l f - e s t e e m a n d n a r c i s s i s m a n d a l l o w e d t h e t w o v a r i a b l e st o c o m p e t e a g a i n s t e a c h o t h e r t o p r e d i c t a g g r e s s i o n . F i r s t , w es o u g h t t o e x a m i n e w h e t h e r s e l f -e s t e e m w o u l d c o n t r ib u t e d i -r e c t l y to a g g r e s s i v e r e s p o n d i n g . A s a l r e a d y n o t e d , t h e t r a d i ti o n a lv i e w i n p s y c h o l o g y i s t h a t l o w s e l f - e s t e e m c a u s e s a g g r e s s i o n ,a n d s o t h i s v i e w w o u l d p r e d i c t h i g h e r l e v e l s o f a g g r e s s i o na m o n g p e o p l e s c o r i n g l o w i n s e l f- e s t e e m . T h i s e f f e c t c o u l d w e l lb e i n d e p e n d e n t o f a l l o t h e r f a c t o r s . T h e o p p o s i t e v i e w , t h a ta g g r e s s i o n w i l l b e h i g h e s t a m o n g p e o p l e h i g h i n s e l f - e s te e m ,i s a l s o p l a u s i b l e .A s e c o n d i s s u e w a s w h e t h e r a n y e f f e c t s o f n a r c i s s i s m o r s e l f -e s t e e m w o u l d b e c o n f i n e d t o re s p o n s e s t o e g o t h r e a t. N a r c i s s i s mi s c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y f e e l i n g s o f s u p e r i o r i t y o v e r o t h e r p e o p l e ,a n d s o s i m p l e d i s r e g a r d f o r t h e r i g h t s a n d f e e l i n g s o f o t h e r sc o u l d r e s u l t i n h i g h e r a g g r e s s i o n , e v e n i n t h e a b s e n c e o f th r e a t .I t i s a l s o p l a u s i b l e t h a t n a r c i s s i s t s p e r c e i v e s o c i a l l i f e a s a s e r i e so f s t r u g g l e s f o r d o m i n a n c e , a n d s o t h e y m a y a t t a c k o t h e r s re -g a r d l e s s o f d i re c t t h r ea t , s i m p l y a s a m e a n s o f e s ta b l i s h i n gt h e m s e l v e s i n a s u p e r i o r p o s i t i o n b y c o n q u e r i n g o r i n t im i d a t i n go t h e r i n d i v i d u a ls . I n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d i e s, p a r t i c i p a n t s f o u n d t h e m -s e l v e s i n th e p o s i t i o n o f b e i n g e v a l u a t e d b y a n o t h e r p e r s o n ,w h i c h i m p l i e s a p o s i ti o n o f v u l n e r a b i l i t y a n d d e p e n d e n c y . L a t e r,t h e y a l s o f o u n d t h e m s e l v e s i n a d i re c t c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h s o m e o n e( w h o w a s e i t h e r t h e e v a l u a t o r o r a d i f f e r e n t p e r s o n ) . E i t h e r o ft h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s m i g h t c a u s e n a r c i s s i s t s t o a t t e m p t t o a s s e r tt h e i r o w n s u p e r i o r i t y t h r o u g h a g g r e s s i v e a c t io n .

L i k e w i s e , i f l o w s e l f - e s t e e m e n g e n d e r s a d e s i r e t o ri s e a b o v eo t h e r s b y a t t a c k i n g t h e m , i t c o u l d o c c u r i n a n y c o m p e t i t i v es i t u a ti o n . H e n c e , t h e t r a d i t io n a l v i e w m i g h t p r e d i c t a m a i n e f f e c tb y w h i c h l o w s e l f - e s t e e m l e a d s t o h i g h a g g r e s s i o n , r e g a r d l e s so f s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , t h e s i t u a t i o n s o f e v a l u a t i v ed e p e n d e n c y o r c o m p e t i t i o n c o u l d e l i c i t a g g r e s s io n f r o m p e o p l ew i t h l o w s e l f - e s t e e m .

A t h i r d i s s u e i s d i s p l a c e d a g g r e s s i o n . T h e o r i e s a b o u t a g g r e s -s i o n h a v e v a r i e d w i d e l y i n th e d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e y e m p h a s i z et h e i n t e r p e r s o n a l a s p e c t . T o c a r i c a t u r e s l i g h t l y , t h e s e t h e o r i e sh a v e r a n g e d f r o m t r e a t i n g a g g r e s s i o n a s a n e r u p t io n o f i n t ra p s y -c h i c f o r c e s ( i n w h i c h c a s e t h e c h o i c e o f t a r g e t i s a l m o s t i r re l e -v a n t ) t o t r e a t in g i t a s a f o r m o f in t e r p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n( c f . B e r k o w i t z , 1 9 8 9 ; D o l l a r d , D o o b , M i l l e r , M o w r e r , & S e a r s ,1 9 3 9 ; T e d e s c h i & F e l s o n , 1 9 9 4 ) . I n S t u d y 2 , w e e x a m i n e d a g -g r e s s i o n t o w a r d t h e s o u r c e o f t h e i n s u l ti n g e v a l u a t i o n a n d a g -g r e s s i o n t o w a r d a n i n n o c e n t t h i rd p e r s o n . I f a g g r e s s i o n r e s u l t sf r o m e g o t h r e at s i m p l y b e c a u s e b a d m o o d s o r o t h e r i n n e r p ro -c e s s e s c r e a t e a g g r e s s i v e i m p u l s e s ( o r r e m o v e t h e b a r r i e r s t oi n s t in c t i v e a g g r e s s i v e i m p u l s e s ) , t h e n a g g r e s s i o n s h o u l d b e h i g hr e g a r d l e s s o f t h e t a rg e t . I n c o n t ra s t , i f a g g r e s s i o n i s a m e a n s o fc o m m u n i c a t i n g d i r e c t l y w i t h t h e e v a l u a t o r , t h e n t h e r e s h o u l d b e

n o i n c r e a s e i n a g g r e s s i o n t o w a r d t h e i n n o c e n t t h i r d p e r s o n , e v e ni f th e p a r t i c i p a n t r e c e i v e d a s e v e r e b l o w t o h i s o r h e r s e l f - e st e e m .

W e h a v e u s e d t h e t e r m s v i o l e n c e a n d a g g r e s s i o n s o m e w h a ti n t e r c h a n g e a b l y i n t h i s in t r o d u c t i o n . S t r i c tl y s p e a k i n g , o u r l a b o -r a t o r y p r o c e d u r e s m e a s u r e a g g r e s s i o n b u t n o t v i o l e n c e , i n s o f a ra s t h e l a t te r i s l i m i t e d t o a c t s t h a t c a u s e s e r i o u s h a r m t o v i c t i m s .N o n e t h e l e s s , i t is g e n e r a l l y a s s u m e d t h a t t h e s tu d y o f l a b o r a t o r ya g g r e s s i o n c a n s h e d l i g h t o n t h e c a u s e s o f v i o l e n c e o u t s i d et h e l a b o r a to r y . I n s u p p o r t o f th i s v i e w , A n d e r s o n a n d B u s h m a n( 1 9 9 7 ) h a v e r e v i e w e d e v i d e n c e t h a t l a b o r a t o r y f i n d i n g s g e n e r a l -i z e w e l l t o n o n l a b o r a t o r y s i tu a t i o n s.

S t u d y 1S t u d y 1 w a s a d i r e c t t e s t o f t h e m a i n h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h r e a t -

e n e d e g o t i s m w o u l d l e a d t o m a x i m a l a g g r e s s io n . W e m e a s u r e db o t h n a r c i s s i s m a n d s e l f - e s t e e m , e x p o s e d p a r t i c i p a n t s t o a n e v a l -u a t i o n t h a t c o n s t i t u t e d e i t h e r a n e g o t h r e a t o r a n e g o b o o s t , a n dt h e n m e a s u r e d a g g r e s s i o n t o w a r d t h e p e r s o n w h o h a d d e l i v e r e dt h e e v a l u a t i o n .

M e ~ o dTrai t measures. Self -es tee m was measured via the standard scaledevelope d by Rosenberg (1965 ) , a widely used instrument w ith good

psychometric propert ies . Sam ple i tems are " I feel that I have a numberof good qual i t ies , " " I take a posi t ive at t itude towa rd mys elf , " and " Iam able to do things as wel l as most people." Each i tem is answeredon a 7-po int scale, and responses are summ ed to create a global sel f -es teem score, w i th high scores indicating high self-es teem. Narciss ismwas measured with the Narciss is t ic Personal i ty Inventory (Raskin &Terry, 1988) , which h as excel len t psychometric propert ies . The scalecon ta ins 40 i t ems tha t a r e answer ed b y means o f a s imple t r ue- f a l s eformat . Sample i tems f rom the scale are " I f I ruled the world i t wouldbe a much be t t e r p l ace , " " I am go ing to be a g r ea t per s on , " and " Iam more capable than other people." In the present sample, the alphacoefficients for the self -es teem and narciss ism scales w ere .55 and .78,respect ively. The correlat ion betw een the two scales w as .09 (p > .05 ) .Se l f - es t eem scor es wer e h igher f o r men ( M = 35 .3 , S D = 4.6) than forwomen ( M = 34 . 1 , S D = 3.3 ) , t (258 ) = 2.30, p < .05, d = 0.30.Nar c i s s is m s cor es a l s o wer e h igher f o r men ( M = 19 . 5 , S D = 5.8) thanf o r w o m e n ( M = 1 7 . 4 , S D = 5.1) , t (258) = 3.14, p < .05, d = 0.35.

Part ic ipants . Participants were 266 undergraduate psyc holo gy stu-dents (132 men and 134 wome n) who receive d extra course credi t inexchan ge for their voluntary par t icipation. Par ticipants were selec tedrandomly f rom a large pool of s tudents who had completed the self -es teem scale as par t o f a bat tery of ques t ionnaires given in mass- tes t ingsessions . The d ata for 6 par t icipants were discarded as a resul t of theseindividuals ' suspiciousness or fai lure to fol low ins truct ions . The f inalsample cons is ted of 260 par t icipants ( 130 men and 130 wo me n) . Also,a separate sample o f 10 men and 10 wom en took par t in a manipulat ionval idat ion s tudy.

Procedure. Experimental participants w ere tested individually in thelaboratory sess ion, b ut each was led to bel ieve that he or she would beinteracting with som eone else of the same sex. Par t icipants were toldthat the researchers were s tudying ho w pe ople react to pos i t ive andnegat ive feedback. Inform ed consent was obtained af ter the par t icipanthad bee n told that the exper im ent would in volve wri ting essays and thencompet ing on a react ion t ime task with s t ress ful , noisy s t imuli as aposs ible outcome. Afte r informed consent had b een obtained, the par t ici -pant com plete d the narcissism scale. The participant w as told that thescale was being used to determine whether feedback affects dif ferenttypes of people in dif ferent ways .


4/11

2 2 2 B U S H M A N A N D B A U M E IS T E REach p a r t i c i p an t w as a sk ed t o w r i t e a o n e -p a rag rap h e s say o n ab o r -

t i o n , e i t h e r p ro -ch o ice o r p ro - l i fe (w h i ch ev e r t h e p a r t i c i p an t p re fe r red ) .A f t e r co mp l e t i o n , t h e p a r t i c i p an t ' s e s say w as t ak en aw ay t o b e sh o w nt o t h e o t h e r p a r t i c i p an t (w h o w as , i n fac t , n o n ex i s t en t ) fo r ev a l u a t io n .Mean w h i l e , t h e p a r t i c i p an t w as p e rm i t ted t o ev a l u a te t h e p a r t n e r ' s e s say ,w h i ch , b y ran d o m ass i g n men t , w as e i t h e r a p ro -ch o i ce o r a p ro - l i fee ssay . Th e re w as o n e e s say o f each t y p e , an d ev e ry p a r t i c i p an t saw o n eo r t h e o t h e r . W e a l so co n t ro l l ed fo r h an d w r i t i n g b y h av i n g ma l e an dfema l e v e rs i o n s o f t h e s t an d a rd e s say s . (W h i ch e s say t h e p a r t i c i p an tsaw h ad n o e f fec t o n su b seq u en t ag g re ss i v e b eh av i o r , w h i ch ru l e s o u tan y ex p l an a t i o n t h a t ag g re ss i o n w as med i a t ed b y p e rcep t i o n s o f p a r t n e rat t i tude or of s imi lari ty between part ic ipant and partner.)

A sh o r t t i me l a t e r , t h e ex p e r i men t e r re t u rn ed t h e p a r t i c i p an t ' s o w nessay w i t h co mmen t s o s t en s i b l y mad e b y t h e o t h e r p a r t i c i p an t . Th eseco mm en t s co n s t i t u t ed th e ex p e r i men t a l man i p u l a t i o n o f eg o t h rea t . Bythe fl ip of a co in , hal f of the part ic ipants were assigned to the egot h rea t co n d i t i o n , an d t h ey rece i v ed b ad ev a l u a t io n s co n s i s t i n g o f n eg a t i v erat ings on organizat ion , orig inal i ty , wri t ing s ty le , c lari ty of expression ,persuasiveness of argum ents , and overal l qual ity . There w as a lso a han d-w r i t t en co mmen t s t a t i n g "Th i s i s o n e o f t h e w o rs t e s say s I h av e read !"The o the r part ic ipants received favorab le , posi t ive evaluat ions consis t ingo f h i g h (p o s i t i v e ) n u mer i ca l ra t i n g s an d t h e fo l l o w i n g w r i tt en co mm en t :"N o su g g es t i o n s , g rea t e s say !"

Th e n ex t p a r t o f t h e p ro ced u re w as p re sen t ed a s a co mp e t i t iv e reac t i o nt i me t a sk b a sed o n a p a rad i g m d ev e l o p ed b y Tay l o r (1 9 6 7 ) ) Prev i o u ss t u d i e s h av e e s t ab l i sh ed t h e co n s t ru c t v a l i d i ty o f T ay l o r 's p a rad i g m (e .g .,Bem s t e i n , R i ch a rd so n , & H amm o ck , 1 9 87 ; G i an co l a & Ze i ch n e r, 1 9 9 5 ) .Th e p a r t i c i p an t w as t o l d t h a t h e o r sh e an d t h e p a r t n e r w o u l d h av e t op re ss a b u t t o n a s fa s t a s p o ss i b l e o n each t r i a l an d t h a t w h o ev e r w ass l o w er w o u l d rece i v e a b l a s t o f n o i se . Each p a r t i c i p an t w as p e rm i t t edt o se t i n ad v an ce t h e i n t en s i ty o f t h e n o i se t h a t t h e o t h e r p e rso n w o u l drece i v e b e t w een 6 0 d B (L ev e l 1 ) an d 1 0 5 d B (L ev e l 1 0 ) i f t h e o t h erlost. A nonagg ressive no-noise se t t ing (Lev el 0) was a lso offered . Inaddi t ion to determ ining noise in tensity , the win ner determ ined the dura-t i o n o f t h e l o se r ' s su f fe r in g , b ecau se t h e d u ra t i o n o f t h e n o i se d ep en d edo n h o w l o n g t h e w i n n e r h e l d t h e b u t to n p re ssed d o w n . In e f fec t, e achp a r t i c i p an t co n t ro l l ed a w eap o n t h a t co u l d b e u sed t o b l a s t t h e o t h e rperson i f the part ic ipant won the compet i t ion to react faster .

A Mac i n t o sh I I co mp u t e r co n t ro l l ed t h e ev en t s i n t h e reac t i o n t i met a sk an d reco rd ed t h e n o i se l ev e l s an d n o i se d u ra t i o n s t h e p a r t i c i p an tse t fo r t h e "o t h e r p e rso n . " Th e w h i t e n o i se co n s i s t ed o f so u n d f i l e ssynthesize d by a d ig i ta l wavef orm e di tor (FaraUon Sound edi t 2 .0 .5 ) andrep ro d u ced t h ro u g h an A u d i o med i a 2 .0 D i g i d es i g n 1 6 -b i t d i g i t- t o -an a lo gco nv e rt er . Th e an a l o g o u t p u t w as am p l i f ied b y an N A D 3 2 2 5 PE i n t e -g ra t ed amp l i f i e r an d d e l iv e red t h ro u g h a p a i r o f Te l ep h o n i c s TD H -3 9 Ph ead p h o n es . A G en e ra l Rad i o 1 5 6 -B so u n d l ev e l me t e r w as u sed t ocal ibra te the noise levels .A f t e r co mp l e t i o n o f t h e reac t i o n t i me t a sk , t h e p a r t i c i p an t w as d e -b r i e fed an d d i smi ssed . A sep a ra t e sam p l e o f p a r t i c i p an ts t o o k p a r t i n av a l i d a t i o n s t u d y t o ch eck t h e eg o t h rea t man i p u l a t i o n ( see l a t e rd i scu ss i o n ) .R e s u l ~

Manipulation validation. T o v e r i f y th e i m p a c t o f t h e e g ot h r e a t m a n i p u l a t i o n , w e c o n d u c t e d a p i l o t s t u dy . A s m e n t i o n e de a r li e r, 1 0 m e n a n d 1 0 w o m e n t o o k p a r t . T h e y f o l l o w e d t h es a m e p r o c e d u r e o f w r i t i n g t h e e s s a y a n d r e c e i v i n g e i t h e r t h ef a v o r a b l e o r u n f a v o r a b l e e v a l u a t i o n . I n s t e a d o f c o n t i n u i n g o nt o t h e a g g r e s s i o n m e a s u r e , h o w e v e r , p a r t i c i p a n t s c o m p l e t e d aq u e s t i o n n a i r e a s s e s s i n g h o w t h e y f e l t o n r e c e i v i n g t h e e v a l u a t i o na n d h o w t h e y p e r c e i v e d t h e e v a l u a t i o n .

A l l e f f e c t s w e r e l a r g e a n d s i g n i f i c a n t . T h e b a d e v a l u a t i o n o ft h e p a r t i c i p a n t ' s e s s a y , i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e g o o d e v a l u a t i o n ,

w a s r a t e d a s m o r e t h r e a t e n i n g , t ( 1 8 ) = 2 . 1 9 , p < . 0 5, d = 0 . 9 8 ;m o r e m a l i c i o u s , t ( 1 8 ) = 4 . 9 4 , p < . 0 5 , d = 2 . 2 1 ; a n d l e s s f a i r,t ( 1 8 ) = - 5 . 0 8 , p < . 0 5, d = 2 . 2 9 . A l s o , p a r t i c i p a n t s r e c e i v i n gt h e b a d e v a l u a t i o n ( r e l a t i v e t o t h o s e r e c e i v i n g t h e g o o d e v a l u a -t i o n ) r e p o r t e d t h a t i t l o w e r e d t h e i r s e l f - e s te e m , t ( 1 8 ) = 3 . 0 5 ,p < . 0 5, d = 1 . 36 , a n d m a d e t h e m f e e l a n g ry , t ( 1 8 ) = 2 . 2 1 , p< . 0 5 , d = 0 . 9 9 . T h e s e r e s u l t s c o n f i r m t h a t t h e b a d e v a l u a t i o np r o c e d u r e d i d i n d e e d c o n s t i t u t e a n u p s e t t i n g e g o t h r e a t .

Main analysis strategy. N o i s e i n t e n s i t y a n d n o i s e d u r a t i o nw e r e m e a s u r e s o f t h e s a m e c o n s t r u c t : a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o r . T h es a m e p a t t er n o f r e s u l ts w a s o b t a i n e d f o r b o t h m e a s u r e s , a n d t h et w o m e a s u r e s w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t ly c o r r e l a t e d ( r = . 3 2 ) . 2 A s am e a n s o f c r e a t i n g a m o r e r e l i a b l e m e a s u r e , t h e n o i s e i n t e n s i t ya n d n o i s e d u r a t i o n d a ta w e r e s t a n d a r d i z e d a n d s u m m e d t o f o r ma t o t a l m e a s u r e o f a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o r .

T h e d a t a w e r e a n a l y z e d v i a r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s . I n r e g r e s s i o na n a l y s i s , r e s e a r c h e r s r e c o m m e n d c e n t e r i n g t h e p r e d i c t o r v a r i -a b l e s w h e n t e s t i n g f o r in t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s ( e . g ., A i k e n & W e s t ,1 9 9 1 ; J a c c a r d , T u rr s i, & W a n , 1 9 9 0 ) . T h i s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , w h i c hr e d u c e s t h e c o r r e l a ti o n b e t w e e n t h e p r o d u c t t e r m a n d t h e c o m p o -n e n t p a r t s o f t h e te r m , w a s u s e d i n t h e p r e s e n t a n a l y s e s . T h er e g r e s s i o n m o d e l i n c l u d e d m a i n e f f e c t s f o r e g o t h r e a t ( 1 =p r e s e nt , 0 = a b s e n t ) , n a r c i s s i s m ( c o n t i n u o u s ) , s e l f - e s te e m( c o n t i n u o u s ) , a n d s e x (1 = m a l e , 0 = f e m a l e ) . T h e m o d e la l s o i n c lu d e d t w o - w a y a n d t h r e e - w a y i n t er a c t io n s , w h i c h w e r ec o m p u t e d a s m u l t i p l ic a t i v e p r o d u c t s o f t h e m a i n e f f e c t s . A h i e r -a r c h i c al a n a ly s i s o f se t s a p p r o a c h w a s u s e d ( C o h e n & C o h e n ,1 9 8 3 ) . T h e m a i n e f f e c t s w e r e e n t e r e d i n t h e f i r s t s t e p , t h e t w o -w a y i n t e r a c t i o n s w e r e e n t e r e d i n t h e s e c o n d s t e p , a n d t h e t h r e e -w a y i n t e r a c t i o n s w e r e e n t e r e d i n t h e t h i r d s te p . T h e f o u r - w a yi n t e r a c t i o n w a s a d d e d t o t h e e r r o r t e r m . T h u s , t h e m a i n e f f e c t sw e r e r e m o v e d f r o m t h e t w o - w a y i n t e r a c t i o n s , a n d t h e m a i n

Th e reac t i o n t i me t a sk co n s i s t ed o f 2 5 t r ia l s . A f t e r t h e i n i ti a l (n op ro v o ca t i o n ) t r i a l , t h e rema i n i n g 2 4 t r i a ls w e re d i v i d ed i n t o t h ree b l o ck sof 8 t r ia l s each . The part ic ipant received feedback on the in tensi ty ofn o i se t h e "o p p o n en t " se t o n each t r i a l . P ro v o ca t i o n w as man i p u l a t edb y i n c rea s i n g t h e i n t en s i ty an d d u ra t i o n o f n o i se b l a s t s t h e "o t h e r p e r -so n " se t fo r t h e p a r t i c i p an t a c ro ss t r i a l s . In t h i s a r t i c l e , w e d esc r i b eonly the resu l t s of Tria l 1 aggression . Resp onses on the f i rs t t r ia l providedt h e b e s t measu re o f u n p ro v o k ed ag g re ss i o n , b ecau se t h e p a r t i c i p an t h adn o t y e t rece i v ed n o i se o r feed b ack f ro m t h e "o t h e r p e rso n . " A f t e r t h ef i r s t t r i al , ag g re ss i o n co n v e rg ed o n rec i p ro ca t io n o f w h a t t h e p a r t n e r h ado s t en s i b l y d o n e . Th i s i s co n s i s t en t w i t h man y p rev i o u s f i n d i n g s su g -g es t in g t h a t rec i p ro ca t i o n i s a p o w erfu l n o rm i n d e t e rmi n i n g ag g re ss i v ere sp o n ses d u r i n g an o n g o i n g ag g re ss i v e ex ch an g e . O n l y a few o t h e rsigni ficant effects were found on su bseque nt t r ia l s . In Study 1 , men weremo re aggressive than wom en, F(1 , 245 ) = 19 .93 , p < .05 , d = 0 .57 .In S t u d y 2 , t h e re w as a ma i n e f fec t fo r ag g re ss i o n t a rg e t t h a t w asq u a l if i ed b y an i n t e rac t i o n b e t w een t h rea t an d ag g re ss i o n t a rg e t, F s ( 1 ,254 ) = 4 .08 and 5 .05 , respectively , ps < .05 . Part ic ipants who receiveda b ad ev a l u a t i o n w ere mo re ag g re ss iv e t h an t h o se w h o rece i v ed a g o o dev a l u a t io n w h en t h e t a rg e t w as t h e so u rce o f t h e ev a l u a t i o n b u t n o t w h enthe target was an innocent th i rd party .

2 Th e reg re ss i o n an a l y s i s fo r n o i se i n t en s i t y rev ea l ed ma i n e f fec t sfor threat , narc issi sm , and sex , Fs (1 , 245) = 7 .79 , 11 .72 , and 23 .63 ,respectively , p s < .05 . The regr ession analysis for noise durat ion re-v ea l ed a m a i n e f fec t fo r n a rc i s s i sm an d a n ea r l y s i g n i f i can t i n t e rac ti o nb e t w een n a rc i s s i sm an d eg o th rea t , F ( 1, 2 4 5 ) = 4 .0 8 , p < .05 , an dF (1 ,2 45 ) = 3 .27 , p < .10 , respectively .


5/11

DOES SELF-LOVE OR SELF-HATE LEAD TO VIOLENCE? 223effects and t wo-way interactions were removed from the three-way interactions.

Multicollinearity, or correlation among the predictor vari-ables, was tested by means of varia nce inflation factors (VIFs;e.g., Neter, Wasserman, & Kutner, 1990). A VIF of 1 indicatesthat the model terms are not linearly related. A maximum VIFvalue in excess of 10 is often taken as an indication that multicol-linearity may be unduly influencing the least squares estimates.The maximum VIF in the regression analyses for Study 1 was1.1, indica ting that multicollinearity was not a problem.

A g g r e s s i o n . The regression analysis yielded significantmain effects for ego threat, narcissism, and sex. Ego threat inthe form of insulting evaluation of the essay led to higher aggres-sion than the nonthreatening, favorable evaluation, F( 1, 245)= 4.41, p < .05, b = 0.39, S E = 0.19, d = 0.25. There was apositive relation between narcissism and aggression, F(1 ,2 45 )= 13.92, p < .05, b = 0.06, S E = 0.02, r = .27. Also, menwere more aggressive than women, F(1, 245) = 14.54, p

Documents

Threatened Egotism, Narcissism, Self Esteem, And Direct and Displaced Aggression Does Selflove or Selfhate Lead to Violence