ArticleAggressive behavior2020
A tool for investigating the differential functions of aggressive behavior in the face-to-face and cyber context: Extending the Cyber-Aggression Typology Questionnaire.
Article in Aggressive behavior, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Association between Appetitive Aggression and Social Media Addiction Mediated by Cyberbullying: The Moderating Role of Inclusive Norms.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- A tool for investigating the differential functions of aggressive behavior in the face-to-face and cyber context: Extending the Cyber-Aggression Typology Questionnaire.Aggressive behavior · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aggressive behavior in the face-to-face and cyber contexts is driven by underlying aggression (i.e., functions of aggressive behavior). Common theories of aggression distinguish between reactive (e.g., rage) and proactive (e.g., seeking to achieve power and affiliation) aggression. However, according to the quadripartite violence typology, this distinction conflates aspects of motivational valence with self-regulatory processes. The Cyber-Aggression Typology Questionnaire (CATQ; Runions et al., 2017, Aggress Behav, 43(1), pp. 74-84) overcomes this weakness by identifying four types of cyber-aggression (impulsive-aversive/rage, controlled-aversive/revenge, controlled-appetitive/reward, and impulsive-appetitive/recreation cyber-aggression). However, the CATQ only considers aggression in cyberspace. We extended the CATQ to the face-to-face context by developing a corresponding Face-to-Face Aggression Typology Questionnaire (FATQ). The aim of this study was to investigate factorial and convergent validity and metric measurement invariance between four-factorial cyber and face-to-face aggression. In total, 587 students from six Austrian universities filled out the CATQ, the FATQ, and additional scales during regular university lectures to examine convergent validity. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the four-factor structure of both questionnaires, after excluding inconclusive items from the impulsive-aversive/rage subscale of the FATQ. These items were also removed from the CATQ to obtain two symmetric questionnaires. Metric measurement invariance between the CATQ and the FATQ was confirmed. Convergent validity was largely observed. Our results support an extended four-factor model of aggression. Having two parallel questionnaires, the FATQ and CATQ, enables future studies to investigate commonalities and differences in underlying drivers of aggressive behavior in the cyber and face-to-face contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.