Construct validity of laboratory aggression paradigms: A response to Tedeschi and Quigley (1996)

The purpose of this article is to present a response to a paper recently published in this journal by Tedeschi and Quigley (1996) in which the authors criticized the validity of laboratory aggression paradigms. Tedeschi and Quigley debated the construct validity of the teacher/learner paradigm, essay evaluation procedures, the bobo doll modeling paradigm, and the competitive reaction time paradigm (which will be referred to herein as the Taylor Aggression Paradigm; TAP). The present article will focus primarily on the TAP, its modified versions, and the Point Substraction Aggression Paradigm (PSAP). Although it is one of the two most frequently employed laboratory measures of aggression, the PSAP was not discussed by Tedeschi and Quigley. These authors stated that laboratory aggression paradigms "under-represent construct of aggression because they deal only with situations of retaliation which have been sanctioned by a third party legitimate authority (the experimenter) and because research participants are given no choice other than physical forms of harm-doing as a means of responding to attacks" (p. 163). It is our intent to rebut this and other criticisms that Tedeschi and Quigley have marshaled against laboratory aggression paradigms. The present article will provide a brief definition of construct validity, the manner in which it is assessed, and a description of pertinent laboratory measures of aggression. This will be followed by a delineation of our responses to Tedeschi and Quigley's criticisms and a comprehensive review of studies that have directly and indirectly contributed to the construct validity of laboratory aggression paradigms. (C) 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd.