An investigation of the mechanism underlying teacher aggression: Testing I3 theory and the General Aggression Model.

BACKGROUND: Considerable research has investigated the deleterious effects of teachers responding aggressively to students who misbehave, but the mechanism underlying this dysfunctional behaviour remains unknown. AIMS: This study investigated whether the mechanism underlying teacher aggression follows I3 theory or General Aggression Model (GAM) metatheory of human aggression. I3 theory explains exceptional, catastrophic events of human aggression, whereas the GAM explains common human aggression behaviours. SAMPLE: A total of 249 Australian teachers participated in this study, including 142 primary school teachers (Mdn [age] = 35-39 years; Mdn [years teaching] = 10-14 years; 84% female) and 107 secondary school teachers (Mdn [age] = 45-49 years; Mdn [years teaching] = 15-19 years; 65% female). METHODS: Participants completed four online self-report questionnaires, which assessed caregiving responsiveness, trait self-control, misbehaviour provocation, and teacher aggression. RESULTS: Analyses revealed that the GAM most accurately captures the mechanism underlying teacher aggression, with lower caregiving responsiveness appearing to indirectly lead to teacher aggression via higher misbehaviour provocation and lower trait self-control in serial, controlling for gender, age, years teaching, and current role (primary, secondary). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that teacher aggression proceeds from 'the person in the situation'. Specifically, lower caregiving responsiveness appears to negatively shape a teacher's affective, cognitive, and arousal states, which influence how they perceive and interpret student misbehaviour. These internal states, in turn, appear to negatively influence appraisal and decision processes, leading to immediate appraisal and impulsive actions. These results raise the possibility that teacher aggression is a form of countertransference.

When do normative beliefs about aggression predict aggressive behavior? An application of I3 theory.

I(3) theory assumes that aggressive behavior is dependent on three orthogonal processes (i.e., Instigator, Impellance, and Inhibition). Previous studies showed that Impellance (trait aggressiveness, retaliation tendencies) better predicted aggression when Instigator was strong and Inhibition was weak. In the current study, we predicted that another Impellance (i.e., normative beliefs about aggression) might predict aggression when Instigator was absent and Inhibition was high (i.e., the perfect calm proposition). In two experiments, participants first completed the normative beliefs about aggression questionnaire. Two weeks later, participants' self-control resources were manipulated either using the Stroop task (study 1, N = 148) or through an "e-crossing" task (study 2, N = 180). Afterwards, with or without being provoked, participants played a game with an ostensible partner where they had a chance to aggress against them. Study 1 found that normative beliefs about aggression negatively and significantly predicted aggressive behavior only when provocation was absent and self-control resources were not depleted. In Study 2, normative beliefs about aggression negatively predicted aggressive behavior at marginal significance level only in the "no-provocation and no-depletion" condition. In conclusion, the current study provides partial support for the perfect calm proposition and I(3) theory.

Mechanisms of Alcohol-Facilitated Intimate Partner Violence.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a critical public health problem that requires clear and testable etiological models that may translate into effective interventions. While alcohol intoxication and a pattern of heavy alcohol consumption are robust correlates of IPV perpetration, there has been limited research that examines the mediating mechanisms of how alcohol potentiates IPV. We provide a theoretical and methodological framework for researchers to conceptualize how alcohol intoxication causes IPV, and propose innovative laboratory methods that directly test mediational mechanisms. We conclude by discussing how these innovations may lead to the development of interventions to prevent or reduce alcohol-related IPV.