Direct and Indirect Aggression in Intimate Relationships in Mexico and Finland

Presented at
The XXIth World Meeting of the Österman, K. , Toldos, M. P. , & Björkqvist, K.1 2 1

International Society for Research on Aggression 1

Åbo Akademi University, Finland
July 15−19, 2014, Atlanta, GA, USA
2
Tecnológico de Monterrey, México

Table 4
Results of a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) with Country and Sex of the
Respondents as Independent Variables, and Six Scales for Victimisation from
Aggression and Six Scales for Perpetration of Aggression against an Intimate Partner
as Dependent Variables (N = 484)
ABSTRACT Table 1
Subscales and Single Items in the The Direct Indirect Aggression Scales for Adults (DIAS-Adult;
Group
with
Österman & Björkqvist, 2009). F df p≤ ηp2 Higher
A questionnaire measuring victimisation from and perpetration of aggressive Mean
When my partner has been angry with me he/she has: Effect of Country
behaviour in intimate relationships (Direct Indirect Aggression Scales for Adults, Multivariate analyses 6.32 12, 468 .001 .139
(When I have been angry with my partner I have:)
DIAS-Adult, Österman & Björkqvist, 2009) was filled in by 484 students 19-30 Physical Aggresssion Univariate analyses
Nonverbal Aggression
years of age in Mexico (n = 380) and in Finland (n = 104). The age difference was Hit me Refused to talk to me
Victimisation from
Physical Aggression 1.58 1, 479 ns .003 −
not significant neither between countries (Mexico 23.2 yrs, SD = 3.1; Finland 22.7 Locked me in Refused to look at me Verbal Aggression 0.48 “ ns .001 −
yrs, SD = 2.6) nor between the sexes (females 22.9, SD = 2.9; males 23.4, SD Locked me out Refused to touch me Direct Socially Manipulative Aggression 6.55 “ .011 .013 Mexico
=3.0). The subscales measure victimisation from and perpetration of direct and Shoved me Put on a sulky face Indirect Socially Manipulative Aggression 16.06 “ .001 .032 Mexico
Bitten me Nonverbal Aggression 2.06 “ ns .004 −
indirect socially manipulative aggression, physical, verbal, nonverbal, and cyber Slammed doors Cyber Aggression 0.26 ” ns .001 −
Scratched me Refused to sleep in the same bed as me
aggression. The alpha scores for the 12 subscales were all above .77. The results Perpetration of
Spit at me Left the room in a demonstrative manner Physical Aggression 2.68 1, 479 ns .006 −
showed that Mexicans scored significantly higher than Finns on both being victims Thrown objects Verbal Aggression 0.18 “ ns .000 −
when I came in
to and perpetrators of both direct and indirect socially manipulative aggression. Damaged something that was mine Made nasty faces or gestures behind Direct Socially Manipulative Aggression 7.10 “ .008 .015 Mexico
Finns scored significantly higher than Mexicans on being perpetrators of cyber Verbal aggression my back
Indirect Socially Manipulative Aggression 11.01 “ .001 .022 Mexico
Nonverbal Aggression 1.60 “ ns .003 −
aggression. Males scored significantly higher than females on being victimised by Threatened to hurt me Cyber Aggression Cyber Aggression 3.42 ” .065 .007 Finland
their partner of physical and nonverbal aggression. Females scored significantly Yelled at me Written angry text messages to me Effect of Sex
Quarreled with me Multivariate analyses 5.02 12, 468 .001 .114
higher on being perpetrators of physical, verbal, nonverbal and indirect socially Purposely said nasty or hurting things to me
Written angry e-mails to me
Univariate analyses
manipulative aggression against their partner. Written nasty text messages about me
Called me bad names Victimisation from
to somebody else Physical Aggression 4.65 1, 479 .031 .010 Males
Interrupted me when I was talking Figure 3. Victimisation from six different types of aggression in intimate
Written nasty e-mails about me Verbal Aggression 2.73 “ ns .006 −
Keywords: Direct and indirect aggression, intimate relationships, sex differences Angrily nagged at me
to someone else Direct Socially Manipulative Aggression 0.08 “ ns .000 − relationships, differences between females and males (N = 484, age span 19−30
Direct Socially Manipulative Aggression Indirect Socially Manipulative Aggression 0.23 “ ns .000 − years).
Sexual Aggresssion
Threatened to leave me Nonverbal Aggression 5.15 “ .024 .011 Males
Forced me to have sex when he/she
Purposely provocated a quarrel with me Cyber Aggression 1.71 ” ns .004 −
Omitted doing things that he/she usually does for both
was angry with me Perpetration of
Research on intimate partner aggression has traditionally had its focus on physical violence. Refused to have sex with me because Physical Aggression 9.73 1, 479 .002 .020 Females
of us (e.g. household work), or done them less well
This study aims at measuring, besides direct physical and verbal aggression, also indirect he/she was angry with me Verbal Aggression 3.60 “ .058 .007 Females
Been ironic towards me Direct Socially Manipulative Aggression 1.00 “ ns .002 −
forms of everyday partner aggression. Nonverbal aggression and cyber aggression have also Been contemptuous towards me Been openly flirting with someone in
Indirect Socially Manipulative Aggression 3.87 “ .050 .008 Females
been included. An instrument, DIAS-Adult, was developed for this purpose, and tried out in Indirect Socially Manipulative Aggression order to anger me Nonverbal Aggression 8.59 “ .004 .018 Females
Mexico and Finland. Spoken badly about me to someone else Economic Aggression Cyber Aggression 2.14 ” ns .004 −
Tried to influence someone (such as children, relatives) Not let me know details about our Interaction of Country and Sex
household economy Multivariate analyses 0.87 12, 468 ns .022
to dislike me
METHOD Ridiculed me in my absence
Tried to exclude me from social situations
Not allowed me to use money that
belongs to both of us
Tried to make me feel guilty
Sample A questionnaire regarding aggressive behaviour in intimate relationships was filled in
by 484 students 19-30 years of age from Mexico (n = 380) and Finland (n = 104). The age
difference was not significant neither between countries (Mexico 23.2 yrs, SD = 3.1; Finland
22.7 yrs, SD = 2.6) or between the sexes (females 22.9, SD = 2.9; males 23.4, SD =3.0). The
age difference between women and men in each country was not significant either. In
Mexico 215 females (mean age 23.1 yrs, SD = 3.0) and 165 males (mean age 23.4 yrs, SD =
3.2) filled in a questionnaire. In Finland the questionnaire was filled in by 62 females (mean RESULTS
age 22.4 yrs, SD = 2.8) and 42 males (mean age 23.2 yrs, SD = 2.3). The Mexican
respondents were from the city of Guadalajara. The Finnish respondents were all Swedish- Correlations between Measures
speaking Finns from the Western cost of Finland. The six subscales for victimisation from aggression in intimate partner relationships
were all highly correlated with each other (see Table 3). The same was true for
Instrument The instrument Direct Indirect Aggression Scales for Adults (DIAS-Adult; different types of perpetration of aggression against a partner. Figure 4. Perpetration of six different types of aggression in intimate
Österman & Björkqvist, 2009), was constructed based on two previous scales intended for relationships, differences between females and males (N = 484, age
children and adolescents, namely The Direct & Indirect Aggression Scales (DIAS; span 19−30 years).
Björkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Österman, 1992) and The Mini Direct Indirect Aggression Table 3
Inventory (Mini-DIA; Österman & Björkqvist, 2008). The new instrument is intended for Correlations between the Six Subscales for Victimisation, and between the Six Subscales for
adults and measures victimisation from and perpetration of six different forms of aggression Perpetration of Aggression, in Intimate Partner Relationships (N = 484)
in intimate partner relationships (2 x 43 questions) (see Table 1 and 2). The response
Above Diagonal: Victimisation 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
alternatives were from 0−4 (never, almost never, seldom, sometimes, and often). Below Diagonal: Perpetration
1. Physical Aggression − .59 *** .50 *** .49 *** .49 *** .51 ***
CONCLUSIONS
Figure 1. Victimisation from six different types of aggression in intimate The results show that Mexicans were more involved in aggressive social manipulation,
Table 2 2. Verbal Aggression .58 *** − .73 *** .57 *** .63 *** .49 ***
Reliability Scores and Number of Items for the Subscales of the Inventory
relationships, differences between Mexico and Finland (N = 484, age span both direct and indirect, as compared to the Finnish subjects. This finding could be
19−30 years). related to the more sociable nature of people from Latin countries. Social interaction may
DIAS-Adult administered to a sample consisting of Mexicans and Finns 3. Direct Socially Manipulative .58 *** .78 *** − .69 *** .68 *** .48 ***
aged 19 to 30 (N = 484) Aggression after all be used in both positive and negative ways. Finns on the other hand, being more
4. Indirect Socially Manipulative .46 *** .62 *** .67 *** − .66 *** .50 *** shy and withdrawn by nature, excelled in cyber aggression, which does not involve direct
Subscales (number of items) Victimisation Perpetration
Aggression
contact between the partners.
α α 5. Nonverbal Aggression .56 *** .66 *** .71 *** .60 *** − .43 ***
It was also found that women were more aggressive towards their male partner than were
Direct Forms men against their female partner. Women used more physical, verbal, nonverbal, and
6. Cyber Aggression .34 *** .45 *** .41 *** .54 *** .37 *** −
Physical Aggression (9) .76 .78 indirect aggressive manipulation than did men. The men were consequently found to be
*** p < .001 victimised from physical aggression and nonverbal aggression more often than women.
Verbal Aggression (7) .86 .83
They did, however, not admit to being more often than women subjected to indirect
Direct Socially Manipulative Aggression (5) .78 .77
aggressive manipulation. The underlying explanation for this deserves further
Indirect Socially Manipulative Aggression (5) .79 .77 investigation. One reason might be that they simply never realised that they were being
Nonverbal Aggression (8) .86 .87 Differences between Countries and Sex Differences indirectly manipulated. After all the whole idea with indirect aggressive social
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted with sex and manipulation is that is should go unnoticed. Interestingly, the women admitted their own
Direct and Indirect Cyber Aggression (4) .68 .69
country as independent variables and six subscales of victimisation, and six of manipulative behaviour.
perpetration of aggression as dependent variables. The multivariate analysis
showed significant effects for both country and sex but not for the interaction
The alpha-scores of the subscales sexual aggression (items 39-41) (α = .39 and .32), and
economic aggression (items 42, 43) (α = .64 and .86) were low and accordingly the
between them (see Table 4, and Figs. 1−4). The univariate analyses revealed that References
Mexicans scored significantly higher than Finns on both being victims of and
scales were omitted. The items can, however, be used as single items. They still remain Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M. J., & Österman, K. (1992). The Direct & Indirect
perpetrators of both direct and indirect socially manipulative aggression. Finns
to be tested on older subjects. Aggression Scales (DIAS). Available in K. Björkqvist & K. Österman (Eds.) (1998). Scales
scored significantly higher than Mexicans on being perpetrators of cyber
  for research on interpersonal relations. Pro Facultate, 4, Finland, Åbo Akademi University.
aggression. Males scored significantly higher than females on being victimised by
Österman, K., & Björkqvist, K. (2008). The Mini Direct Indirect Aggression Inventory (Mini-
their partner of physical, nonverbal, and cyber aggression, while females scored
DIA). Available in K. Österman (Ed.) (2010). Indirect and direct aggression. Frankfurt am
significantly higher on being perpetrators of physical, verbal, nonverbal and
Figure 2. Perpetration of six different types of aggression in intimate Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
indirect socially manipulative aggression against their partner. relationships, differences between Mexico and Finland (N = 484, age Österman, K., & Björkqvist, K. (2009). Direct Indirect Aggression Scales for Adults (DIAS-
  span 19−30 years). Adult). Åbo Akademi University, Finland.

e-mail: [email protected]