Practical No-3

Aggression Questionnaire-AQ
Introduction
Objective (Aim)- The purpose of this practical is to understand the administration of the
Aggression Questionnaire and measure the level of aggression of the participant.

Definitions
Aggression is a behavior aimed at harming others physically or psychologically. (American
Psychological Association [APA],2018)

Aggression is an action or response by an individual that delivers something unpleasant to

another person.

The term aggression comes from the Latin word aggressio, meaning attack. The Latin was
itself a joining of ad- and gradi-, which meant step at. The first known use dates back to
1611, in the sense of an unprovoked attack.

Aggression is a behaviour that is intended to harm another individual who does not wish to
be harmed. (Baron & Richardson, 1994).

Aggression is a behaviour that results in personal injury or the destruction of property.

(Bandura,1973).

Types
Physical Aggression

Whenever a person behaves aggressively in such a way that he/she wants to physically harm
others , then that person is said to have shown physical aggression. It can range from pushing,
hitting, kicking, or throwing objects to more extreme forms like physical assault.

Verbal Aggression

Verbal Aggression includes shouting, swearing, insults and other cruel and unkind remarks
intended to cause pain and distress to others.
Anger

Anger is an emotion characterized by tension and hostility arising from frustration , injury or
perceived injustice. Anger is different from aggression but it can activate aggressive
behaviour.

Hostility(Hostile Aggression)

It is driven by anger with the primary goal of causing pain or injury to the target. It is often
impulsive and emotionally charged, arising from perceived threats or provocations. For
example: Road rage incidents .

Indirect Aggression

Indirect Aggression occurs when the aggressor attempts to harm someone without
confronting them directly. This type of aggression is often covert and incudes actions such as
gossiping, manipulating or sabotaging someone behind their back. For example: Spreading
rumours about a colleague at work to harm their reputation.

Theory of Aggression

Biological Theory

Genetics. According to research, aggression may be significantly influenced by

hereditary parameters. Studies on families and twins reveal that those with violent parents or
siblings typically behave more aggressively themselves.

Neuroanatomy. The amygdala, a limbic system brain structure, is responsible for processing
emotions like fear and anger. Overactivation can lead to aggressive responses. The prefrontal
cortex, responsible for decision-making and impulse control, is linked to aggression.
Dysfunction in this region can result in poor control over aggressive impulses. The
hypothalamus regulates basic drives, and stimulation of certain areas can trigger aggressive
behaviours. Damage to the prefrontal cortex can lead to increased aggression.

Neurochemistry. Low levels of serotonin, a neurotransmitter, are linked to aggression due to

its role in mood regulation and inhibiting impulsive behaviours. Dopamine, another
neurotransmitter, is associated with reward-seeking behaviour and can enhance aggressive
actions. GABA, an inhibitory neurotransmitter, can lead to heightened aggression due to
reduced inhibition of impulsive behaviours. Low serotonin levels have been linked to
disorders like IED, where sudden aggression outbursts occur over minor provocations.
Hormonal Influences. Testosterone, a sex hormone, is linked to aggression, especially in
males, and can influence dominance and competitive behaviours. Cortisol, a stress hormone,
can also influence aggression, with high levels during chronic stress leading to irritability and
aggression.

Evolutionary Perspective. Aggression may have evolved as an adaptive trait, allowing

individuals to defend resources, compete for mates, and establish dominance within social
groups. From this perspective, aggressive behaviour is seen as a survival mechanism, though
the expression of aggression can vary depending on environmental and cultural contexts. In
early human societies, aggressive behaviours were often necessary to protect resources or
secure status within a group, which would increase survival chances.

Socio-Cultural Explanation of Aggression

Social. Albert Bandura's Observational Learning Theory, also known as Social

Learning Theory (SLT), emphasizes that people learn behaviours, attitudes, and emotional
reactions through observing others. This theory highlights the importance of modelling,
imitation, and vicarious learning in shaping behaviours.

Bobo Doll Experiment

A classic example of observational learning related to aggression is Bandura's Bobo doll

experiment. In this study, children watched an adult model behave aggressively towards a
Bobo doll (e.g., hitting and kicking it). Some children saw the adult rewarded for aggressive
behaviour, while others saw the adult punished or experienced no consequences. Children
who observed aggressive models were more likely to imitate aggressive actions. The
children’s aggression was also influenced by whether the model was rewarded or punished.
Children were more likely to imitate the aggression if the model was rewarded or experienced
no consequences.

Bandura’s theory suggests that aggression can be learned by observing others, especially if
the aggressive behaviour is modelled by someone the observer admires or identifies with
(e.g., a parent, peer, or celebrity) and if the behaviour is rewarded or goes unpunished. For
instance, if a child sees someone bully another person and gain social status or resources as a
result, they may be motivated to imitate that aggressive behaviour.
Real Life Examples

Media exposure to violent content can lead children and adolescents to imitate aggressive
behaviours, with the more powerful or attractive the character, the more likely they are to
model such behaviour. Popular action heroes may teach young viewers that aggression is
effective.

Children may learn that using aggression as a typical approach of resolving disputes is
acceptable and effective if their families often use physical punishment or aggression. They
could absorb these violent behaviours over time and use them in different social situations.

Cultural. Cultural norms and socialization significantly influence attitudes towards

aggression. In some cultures, aggression is seen as a legitimate way to resolve conflicts or
establish dominance, leading to children being socialized to view aggression as acceptable or
necessary. For example, "cultures of honour" in Southern regions of the United States may
encourage men to respond more aggressively to insults or threats to their social status.(Cohen
and Nisbett,1994)

Traditional gender roles also reinforce aggression, with men often expected to be assertive
and dominant, while women are encouraged to be more passive. This can normalize
aggressive behaviour among men, as seen in patriarchal societies in the Middle East and
South Asia. (Kandiyoti,1988)

Collectivist cultures, which emphasize group harmony and interdependence, discourage open
displays of aggression due to their potential to disrupt social order. In contrast, individualist
cultures may tolerate higher levels of aggression, as personal goals and self-expression are
prioritized over group harmony. For example, in Japan, social harmony is highly valued, and
aggression is often suppressed to avoid disturbing peace.(Nickerson,2023)

Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis- The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis was first

proposed by John Dollard and his colleagues in 1939. It posits that frustration, which arises
when a goal-directed behaviour is blocked, leads to aggression. According to this theory,
aggression is a direct result of frustration and serves as a way to reduce it.
1.Frustration: The feeling that arises when an individual is prevented from reaching a desired
goal. This can occur due to external obstacles (like being stuck in traffic) or social
circumstances (like being interrupted during a conversation).
2.Aggression: An action or behaviour intended to harm someone, either physically or
emotionally. It is seen as a reaction to frustration.
3.Displacement: When direct aggression toward the source of frustration is not possible or
socially acceptable, aggression may be displaced onto another target. For instance, someone
who has a bad day at work might vent their frustration at home.

The original hypothesis claimed that frustration always leads to aggression and aggression
always stems from frustration. This view was later revised to accommodate instances where
frustration does not lead to aggression or where aggression occurs without a clear source of
frustration.
In 1941, Neal Miller and other researchers refined the hypothesis, suggesting that frustration
creates a readiness for aggression, but does not guarantee it. External factors, like social
norms or fear of punishment, can inhibit aggressive behaviour, even in the face of frustration.

Real-Life Examples
Road Rage: Being delayed in traffic can lead to frustration, which may result in aggressive
behaviour like honking or yelling at other drivers.

Workplace Stress: An employee who feels that their efforts are unappreciated may experience
frustration. This frustration could lead to aggressive actions, like talking back to a superior or
showing passive-aggressive behaviour.

Displaced Aggression: A person who is yelled at by their boss might not retaliate directly but
could later take out their frustration on family members.

While the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis offers a clear link between frustration and
aggressive behaviour, it has been criticized for being overly simplistic. Critics argue that not
all frustration leads to aggression and that personality traits, social context, and coping
mechanisms play significant roles.

Factors affecting Aggression

Aversive Incidents- Aversive incidents are situations that cause discomfort or distress,
leading to aggressive behaviour. These can be physical (e.g., pain, heat, crowding) or
psychological (e.g., frustration, provocation, rejection). The frustration-aggression hypothesis
suggests that frustration, which results from being blocked from achieving goals, increases
aggressive responses. Physical discomfort, such as pain or extreme heat, is linked to
aggression, with studies showing a correlation between hot weather and increased violent
crime rates in urban areas.
Arousal- Arousal is a state of heightened alertness or stimulation, which can intensify
emotions and lead to aggressive behaviour when provoked or stressed. The Excitation
Transfer Theory suggests that arousal from one source can be misattributed to another,
causing aggressive responses. For example, after an intense sporting event, fans who are still
aroused may engage in fights, especially if provoked or angered by opposing fans.
Media- Media exposure, particularly violent content, has been linked to increased aggression.
According to Albert Bandura's social learning theory, people learn behaviours through
observation and imitation, and if they see violence being rewarded or glorified in media, they
are more likely to imitate these behaviours in real life. Repeated exposure to violence can
desensitize individuals to the pain and suffering of others, making them less empathetic and
more prone to aggressive behaviour.
Group Influence-Group influence can significantly impact aggressive tendencies, especially
when individuals feel anonymous or fear consequences. Deindividuation, a psychological
state where individuals lose self-awareness and personal responsibility, can lead to aggressive
behaviours. Group polarization, where individuals with similar views reinforce each other's
attitudes, can lead to extreme positions. In real-life situations, individuals may engage in
vandalism or violence when surrounded by a large, emotionally charged crowd, highlighting
the importance of understanding and managing group dynamics.

Ways to reduce aggression

Family approach-The family approach to aggression focuses on addressing aggression
through family dynamics and relationships. It emphasizes positive communication, conflict
resolution, and emotional support. Parenting styles, family cohesion, and home environment
can influence aggression. Authoritative parenting, which combines warmth and discipline, is
associated with lower aggression in children. Family therapy, which involves working with
the entire family, addresses relational issues that might fuel aggression. Techniques like
active listening, role modelling, and emotional expression help create a healthier family
dynamic. Real-life examples show that family counselling can reduce aggressive behaviour in
social settings by teaching parents to handle disagreements non-aggressively.
Cognitive Approach-The cognitive approach focuses on how an individual's thought
patterns contribute to aggressive behaviour. It helps reduce aggression by identifying and
changing maladaptive thought processes. Cognitive-behavioural techniques (CBT) are often
used to help people rethink automatic thoughts that may lead to aggression. Cognitive
restructuring involves teaching individuals to recognize irrational or negative thoughts and
replace them with more balanced and positive ones. Social skills training, such as anger
management techniques, relaxation exercises, and assertiveness training, can also help lower
the risk of aggression. For example, a person who reacts aggressively in traffic may benefit
from CBT by reframe their automatic negative thoughts and adopt more rational responses.
Catharsis-Catharsis is the release of pent-up emotions, particularly anger, to reduce
aggression. It suggests that expressing aggressive impulses, like venting frustration, can
reduce the likelihood of aggressive behaviour. However, the effectiveness of catharsis in
reducing aggression is debated, as some studies suggest that anger may reinforce aggressive
tendencies. Early theories suggested that aggressive acts could provide an emotional release,
but research by some psychologists suggests that venting anger may increase aggressive
feelings. Alternative approaches, such as teaching relaxation techniques or problem-solving
strategies, are more effective in reducing aggression.

Research studies
a)Neurobiology of Aggression & Mental Illness : This review done by Volavka (2014)
discussed the neurobiological mechanisms underlying aggression in individuals with mental
health disorders, particularly focusing on neurotransmitter imbalances and brain structure
abnormalities. The key findings were that discussed the neurobiological mechanisms
underlying aggression in individuals with mental health disorders, particularly focusing on
neurotransmitter imbalances and brain structure abnormalities.
b)Mental Illness, Violence Risk, and Substance Abuse : This research by Elbogen & Johnson
(2009) explored the relationship between mental illness, substance abuse, and violent
behaviour, using data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related
Conditions (NESARC). They found that mental illness alone was not a strong predictor of
violent behaviour, but the combination of mental illness and substance abuse significantly
increased the likelihood of violence. This highlights the complex interplay between these
factors.
c)Aggression, Violent Behaviour and Psychiatric Disorders: This study by Swanson et al.
(1990) explored the prevalence of violent behaviour among individuals with psychiatric
disorders, using data from the Epidemiologic Catchment Area surveys. It found a significant
association between psychiatric disorders and violent acts. They found that around that time
Psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, major depression, and mania were strongly
associated with increased rates of violence. The co-occurrence of substance abuse further
heightened the risk of aggressive behaviours.
d)Violent Video Games & Aggression: This study by Bushman & Anderson (2002) examined
the link between playing violent video games and aggressive behaviour. The researchers
found that exposure to violent games increased aggression in both short- and long-term
contexts. The study found that repeated exposure to violent video games can desensitize
individuals to violence, reduce prosocial behaviour, and increase aggressive thoughts and
actions.

Methodology

Test Description
The Aggression Questionnaire (sometimes referred to as the AQ) also known as The Buss–
Perry Aggression Questionnaire was designed by Arnold H. Buss and Mark Perry, professors
from the University of Texas at Austin in a 1992 article for the Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. The AQ consists of 34 items measuring five factors: physical aggression,
verbal aggression, anger, hostility, and indirect aggression.
The present scale includes 8 items to measure physical aggression, 7 to measure verbal
aggression, 7 to measure anger, 8 to measure hostility and 6 to measure indirect aggression.

Norms
The final version of the AQ is meant for usage in populations including youth(from age 9 to
18), younger adults (from age 19-39) and older adults(age 40+).

Reliability
Reliability of the test can be administered by examining the internal consistency. Values
of .70 for and higher in internal consistency are considered adequate. For the AQ
questionnaire the internal consistency estimates for .94, thus making it reliable.
The AQ also shows good test-retest reliability over time. Harris reported correlational scores
of .85 upon carrying out test-retest stability.
Validity
Factorial validity-The BPAQ consists of four subscales: Physical Aggression, Verbal
Aggression, Anger, and Hostility. These subscales have been found to be distinct and
measure different aspects of aggression.
Convergent Validity-The BPAQ shows significant correlations with other measures of
aggression, such as the Aggression Questionnaire and peer reports of aggressive behaviour.
Discriminant Validity-The subscales differentiate well between various forms of aggression
and show lower correlations with unrelated constructs like anxiety or depression.
Criterion validity-The BPAQ has also been shown to predict aggressive behaviours in various
settings, such as schools, workplaces, and the community.
Predictive validity-The BPAQ has been shown to predict future aggressive behaviour,
suggesting that it is a useful tool for identifying individuals who are at risk for aggression.

Scoring and Interpretation

The questionnaire uses a Likert scale for responses, typically ranging from 1 to 5 where 1
indicates ‘Not at all Like me’, 2 indicates ‘A little like me’, 3 indicates ‘Somewhat like me’,
4 indicates ‘Very Much like me’ and 5 indicates ‘ Completely like me’.
In the spaces provided for Inconsistent Responding(INC) Index score, copy the response
values that were marked for each of the designated INC item pairs. If the responses for an
item pair differ by more than 1 point, put a check mark in the box for that pair. When you
have done this for all 12 item pairs, count the number of check marks and record the result in
the space labelled "INC Score."

On the Scoring Worksheet, if there are any items for which no response was marked, circle
the median response value printed in bold type. Next, copy the circled response value for
each item into the corresponding box printed in the same row. These boxes are arranged in
columns labelled with the names of the five subscales. In each column, add up the values you
have entered and record the result in the space at the bottom as the raw score for the
identified subscale. Sum the raw scores for the five subscales and record the result in the
space for the AQ Total score.

Select the section of the AQ Profile Sheet that is appropriate for the respondent's age.
Transfer the raw scores from the Scoring Worksheet to the designated spaces at the bottom of
the Profile Sheet. In the column of values for each AQ score, circle the number or range of
numbers that corresponds to the raw score you have recorded below it. Some of the raw score
values on the Profile Sheet are provided in separate columns for males and females, so be
sure to select the appropriate column when circling the raw scores you have calculated. The
two columns on the left side of each Profile Sheet section list the T-scores and percentile
rankings that correspond to the raw score values in each row. Locate the T-scores that
correspond to the raw scores you have circled and record them in the row of spaces provided
at the bottom of the Profile Sheet. Finally, transfer the INC score you calculated earlier to the
space provided in the shaded portion of the Profile Sheet. Then using following table of the
manual interpret the scores.

T-score Range Percentile Range Interpretation

≤29T <2 Very Low
30T-39T 2-14 Low
40T-44T 15-27 Low Average
45T-55T 28-71 Average
56T-59T 72-81 High Average
60T-69T 82-97 High
≥70T >97 Very High

Demographics Details

● Name (initials only)- DP

● Age /Date of birth- 20, 27 January, 2004
● Gender- Female
● Marital status- Single
● Educational background- Undergrad
● Occupation - Student
● Family structure- Nuclear
● Ordinal position- Younger of two
● Family tree
 ● Mother’s occupation- House Wife

● Mother’s educational background- BA

● Father’s occupation- Businessman

● Father’s educational background- MSc
● Geographical location- UP
● Socioeconomic status- Upper Middle

Case History

DP is a 20-year-old who is currently studying in a college in Mumbai. She hails from UP but
is currently residing in hostel. She has an elder brother. She lived with her extended family
for first 17 years of her life, but from past few years she has been living with her parents and
elder brother. This is her first time living far away from her home so it is was a little difficult
to adjust because she is very close with her family members as well as her friends. They have
been her biggest supporters through the ups and downs of her life.

Throughout her school life, she was an ideal student as she was good at academics as well as
other co-curricular activities. She actively participated in competitions, group activities,
sports etc. She loved playing sports especially badminton, she still tries to incorporate
badminton in her daily life. Her hobbies include reading books and listening to music as well.
She describes herself as an ambivert. She feels comfortable initiating conversation in social
settings as well as enjoys her alone time. She has small social circle of friends with whom she
enjoys watching movies. She finds nature peaceful and calming thus whenever she gets some
free time, she visits garden to practice yoga and meditation.

She doesn’t react impulsively in situations when she disagrees with someone or something
instead, she thinks things thoroughly with a calm mind and then make her decisions.
Whenever she finds herself in an argument with someone, her main focus is to solve things
calmy as she believes shouting and saying hurtful things will not help improve the situation.
Overall, DP has a calm and collected nature, she gives this credit to her parents’ upbringing
and yoga. She also adds that her parents and her elder brother have always taught her to deal
with daily life situations as well as difficult situations with ease and in a quiet manner, thus
she does not get angry and behaves aggressively in some situations. DP is also very patient,
which helps her to keep herself calm in difficult situations.

Materials Required- AQ Questionnaire, Pencil, Paper, MSE, Consent Form.

Procedure

Arrangement of Materials- We were provided with the Buss-Perry Aggression

Questionnaire and were asked to conduct the screening on a participant who had no prior
knowledge about the test.

Precautions- It was made sure that participant read and understood the instructions. Along
with that, it was made sure that no external prompt was given to the participant about the
screening while it was being conducted.

Instructions to the Subject-The statements on the back of this form ask you to describe how
you interact with other people. There are no right or wrong answers, so please just describe
yourself as honestly as you can. When you are ready to begin, read each statement carefully
and decide how well it describes you, using the following response scale. Then circle the
number of the one response that best fits your answer.

1- Not at all like me, 2-A little like me, 3-Somewhat like me, 4-Very much like me and 5-
Completely like me

Please circle only one response for each statement. If you want to change an answer, draw an
X through your first response. Then circle the number that shows your new choice.

Introspective Report-The person conducting the screening was patient and conveyed the
instructions clearly.

Retrospective Report- The patient was calm throughout the test and was able to answer all
the questions clearly.

Scoring and Interpretation of the Result

Sr.No. Dimensions T-score Percentile Interpretation

Range
1. Physical 44 26% Low Average
Aggression
2. Verbal 62 88% High
 3. Anger 48 40% Average
4. Hostility 53 63% Average
5. Indirect 49 45% Average
Aggression
OVERALL TOTAL AQ- 65 T-SCORE-52 TOTAL %- INTERPRETATION-
60% Average

According to the T-score and percentile range, the participant exhibits average level of
aggression meaning she does not react impulsively and aggressively, even though such
situations arise.

Discussion

DP, a 20-year-old college student, exhibits overall average level of aggression as reflected in
her score on the Aggression Questionnaire.

DP's low average score suggests she is unlikely to respond to physical aggression, which
aligns with her case history of handling conflicts calmly and avoiding impulsive reactions.
Her calm and collected nature, attributed to her upbringing and yoga practice, suggests strong
emotional regulation skills in conflict situations. In disagreements, DP is likely to talk
through the issue or walk away from a potential fight, demonstrating her ability to handle
challenging circumstances effectively.

DP's high verbal aggression score suggests she uses assertive words to express herself, but
her case history suggests she settles disputes gently. Her ability to express opinions clearly
and forcefully without using hate or violence may be the reason for her high aggression score.
When expressing her opinion, she may argue verbally, but her goal is to solve problems rather
than intensify confrontation. In a fight, she may voice her disapproval authoritatively while
focusing on finding a cool-headed solution. Despite her intense speech, she always tries to
find a cordial outcome.

DP, a person with an average score in anger, has learned effective strategies to manage and
regulate her emotions. Her yoga practice and upbringing have contributed to her ability to
remain composed in stressful situations. Instead of letting anger control her actions, she takes
time to think and calm down before responding. For example, if someone interrupts her
during a group study session, she would handle the situation calmly by addressing the
interruption without losing her temper.

DP's average score in hostility indicates occasional mistrust or resentment, but these are not
frequent. Her positive outlook towards family and friends, who she relies on for support,
suggests a generally trusting and positive attitude. This helps her keep hostile thoughts in
check, even in conflict. If she feels wronged, she might briefly experience hostility, but her
nature towards calm problem-solving would lead her to focus on resolving the issue.

DP's average score in indirect aggression suggests she uses these behaviours at a typical
level, not overly passive-aggressive but occasionally to express frustration. However, her
calm and thoughtful nature suggests she prefers direct communication and conflict resolution.
If she feels left out by her friends, she may initially feel resentful but is more likely to address
her feelings openly by talking it out with her friends or reflect on the situation to find a
positive resolution.

DP's average T-score of 52 in the Aggression Questionnaire suggests that while she may
occasionally experience frustration or assert herself, when necessary, she does not display
problematic levels of aggression. Her upbringing, cultural background, and use of positive
coping strategies (like yoga and meditation) allow her to maintain a calm and patient
demeanour, even in difficult situations. Her strong family values, emotional intelligence, and
self-regulation further contribute to her ability to avoid impulsive aggressive reactions.

Conclusion

The main purpose of administering the Aggression Questionnaire given by Buss and Perry
was to find out the level of aggression in the participant. The AQ score of the participant was
65, T-scores were 52 and percentile range was 60% that indicates average level of aggression,
thus making DP less likely to behave aggressively.

References

APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). APA Dictionary of Psychology. Apa.org;
American Psychological Association. https://dictionary.apa.org/aggression

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Prentice-Hall.

Baron, & Richardson. (1994). 10.1 defining Aggression. Open.lib.umn.edu; University of
Minnesota Libraries Publishing edition, 2015.
https://open.lib.umn.edu/socialpsychology/chapter/10-1-defining-aggression/

Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its Causes, Consequences, and Control. McGraw-Hill.

Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Violent Video Games and Hostile Expectations: A
Test of the General Aggression Model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12),
1679–1686. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616702237649

Buss, Arnold H. and Perry, Mark. P. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-00039-
001

Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Human aggression in evolutionary psychological

perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 17(6), 605–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-
7358(97)00037-8

Buss‚ A. H.‚ & Warren‚ W. L. (2000). Aggression Questionnaire: Manual. Los Angeles:
Western Psychological Services.

Cohen, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1994). Self-Protection and the Culture of Honor: Explaining
Southern Violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 551–567.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205012

Davidson, R. J. (2000). Dysfunction in the Neural Circuitry of Emotion Regulation--A

Possible Prelude to Violence. Science, 289(5479), 591–594.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.289.5479.591

Elbogen, E. B., & Johnson, S. C. (2009). The Intricate Link Between Violence and Mental
Disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66(2), 152.
https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2008.537

Ferguson, C. J. (2010). Genetic Contributions to Antisocial Personality and Behaviour: A

Meta-Analytic Review from an Evolutionary Perspective. The Journal of Social Psychology,
150(2), 160–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903366503

Hamilton, M. (2012). (PDF) verbal aggression: Understanding the psychological

antecedents and social consequences. ResearchGate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
254116768_Verbal_Aggression_Understanding_the_Psychological_Antecedents_and_Social
_Consequences

Huesmann, L. R. (2007). The Impact of Electronic Media Violence: Scientific Theory and
Research. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S6–S13. National Library of Medicine.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.005

Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with Patriarchy. Gender & Society, 2(3), 274–290.
https://doi.org/10.1177/089124388002003004

Nickerson, C. (2023, October 24). Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory & Examples.
Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/hofstedes-cultural-dimensions-
theory.html

R. Douglas Fields. (2019). The Roots of Human Aggression. Scientific American.

https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0519-64

Siever, L. J. (2008). Neurobiology of Aggression and Violence. American Journal of

Psychiatry, 165(4), 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.07111774

Swanson, J. W., Holzer, C. E., Ganju, V. K., & Jono, R. T. (1990). Violence and Psychiatric
Disorder in the Community: Evidence From the Epidemiologic Catchment Area Surveys.
Psychiatric Services, 41(7), 761–770. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.41.7.761

Terburg, D., Morgan, B., & van Honk, J. (2009). The testosterone–cortisol ratio: A hormonal
marker for proneness to social aggression. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,
32(4), 216–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2009.04.008

Volavka, J. (2014). Neurobiology of violence and aggression. Journal of Psychiatry &

Neuroscience, 30(5), 429–436.