Validation of a paradigm to measure instrumental aggression (iap) on a sample of male adolescents with adjustment problems

Aggressive behavior can be classified in hostile and instrumental aggressions (anderson & bushman, 2002). this classification is mostly synonymously used with reactive and proactive aggression, whereas the differences between hostile and instrumental aggression lie on three dimensions, the primary goal, amount of anger and planning and calculation(bushman & anderson, 2001). although there are rating instruments and experimental paradigms to measure hostile aggression, there is no instrument to measure instrumental aggression. the following study will present an account to measure instrumental aggression with an experimental laboratory paradigm. the instrument was firstly tested on two samples of normal young adolescents (n1 = 100; amage. = 19.14; n2 = 60; amage. = 21.46). the first study revealed a strong correlation with a laboratory aggression paradigm measuring hostile aggression, but no correlations with self-reported aggression in the buss and perry questionnaire. these results were replicated in a second study, revealing an additional correlation with aggressive but not adaptive assertiveness. secondly the instrument was part of the evaluation of the reasoning and rehabilitation program r&r2 (ross, hilborn & lidell, 1984) in an institution for male adolescents with adjustment problems in switzerland. the r&r2 is a cognitive behavioral group therapy to reduce antisocial and promote prosocial cognitions and behavior. the treatment group (n= 16; rangeage = 15-17) is compared to a no treatment control group (n=24; rangeage = 17-19) preand post- treatment. further aggressive behavior was surveyed and experimentally measured. hostile rumination, aggressive and adaptive assertiveness, emotional and social competence were included in the measurement to estimate construct validity.

Let’s collaborate, but I will be the first author! Exploring the importance of the first authorship for IS researchers

Collaboration among researchers is typically seen as the quintessence of academic excellence, leading to improvements in the research quality, capitalization on the diversity of perspectives and gains in productivity. Despite these benefits, many research teams find themselves torn by competition, antagonism and resentment. Desire to be the first author and resultant underperformance of non-first co-authors is often at the root of these conflicts. At the same time little is known about what motivates researchers in general and IS researchers in particular to engage as first authors. To fill this gap, this study uses survey methodology to explore the attitudes of IS researchers and their resulting behavior when it comes to authors order. Qualitative and quantitative evidence collected from 398 IS researchers is used to support our analysis. We find that researchers’ desire to be the first authors is mainly driven by such determinants as career aspirations, visibility, leadership and sense of ownership, and less so by the desire to satisfy their self-esteem and self-actualization needs. In addition, the value placed on being the first author appears to be the function of researchers’ career level, with Ph.D. students attaching significantly higher value to it than senior scholars.