Sullivan & Geaslin PREDICTORS OF AGGRESSION 53

Authors Info: Bryce F. Sullivan, Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University

Edwardsville, Edwardsville, Illinois 62026-1121; bsulliv@siue.edu.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2001, Vol. 16, No. 1, 5368.
2001 Select Press, Novato, CA, 415/209-9838.
The Role of Narcissism, Self-Esteem, and
Irrational Beliefs in Predicting Aggression
Bryce F. Sullivan
Danica L. Geaslin
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
Aggression was examined as it relates to narcissism, self-esteem, and
irrational beliefs in a sample of 235 college students. Supporting
traditional views, self-esteem was inversely related to aggression. In
addition, narcissism and irrational beliefs were positively related to
aggression. Although both narcissism and self-esteem were related to
aggression, they were correlated to different aspects of the construct.
Narcissism was correlated with instrumental aggression, whereas self-
esteem was correlated with the cognitive and affective domains of
aggression. Hierarchical regression analyses were used to examine the
unique contributions of the predictor variables on aggression. The results
showed that narcissism and self-esteem, but not irrational beliefs, made
unique contributions to the prediction of aggression.
The causes and correlates of aggressive behavior are increasingly
being examined by social scientists in the wake of what seems to be a
constant escalation of violence in our society. In fact, because of this
epidemic of violent behavior, the Surgeon General of the United States
recently completed a report that summarized the magnitude and causes
of youth violence in the U.S. (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 2001).
The prevalence of violence and aggression underscores the need to
identify common antecedents and correlates of aggressive behaviors or
traits. Historically, a variety of theories have been used to explain
aggression. For example, a prominent early view used drive theory to
argue that frustration is the cause of aggression (Dollard, Dobb, Miller,
Mowrer, & Sears, 1939). Dollard et al. argued that aggression is always
a consequence of frustration (p. 1). The intensity of aggression, in this
view, is determined by the intensity of the strength of frustration and
punishment. Berkowitzs cognitive-neoassociationistic model (1990)
extends the work of Dollard et al. and assumes that associative networks
54 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY
link feelings, thoughts, and memories with expressive motor and physi-
ological reactions.
Buss (1961) influential work went beyond the frustration-aggres-
sion hypothesis to suggest that frustration is one of a number of anteced-
ents to aggression. More recently, Banduras (1973) social learning
analysis has also been widely embraced by many social scientists and
clinicians. Bandura argued that a culture can produce highly aggressive
people, while keeping frustration at a low level, by valuing aggressive
accomplishments, furnishing successful aggressive models, and ensur-
ing that aggressive actions secure rewarding effects (p. 59). Banduras
social learning model optimistically views the possibility of reducing
human aggression because it is not due to innate instincts or unconscious
forces. Instead, like other cognitive-behavioral theories, this view holds
that aggression is developed in response to various reinforcements and
cognitive representations that can be modified in the individual.
Aggressive behavior no doubt has multiple determinants. Building
on past theories of aggression as a foundation, it is important to deter-
mine the role of personality in individuals likely to become aggressive.
Many writers have posited that low self-esteem is a cause of aggression
(Schoenfeld, 1988; Toch, 1969). Adherents to the low self-esteem theory,
as it might be called, would posit that an increase in self-esteem is the
reward for aggressive behavior (cf., Buss, 1986). Others, such as Staub
(1996), argued that aggression is related to low self-esteem, although he
did not claim a causal relationship between self-esteem and aggression.
Views that argue for an inverse relationship between self-esteem
aggression are lacking in empirical support according to Baumeister,
Bushman, and Campbell (2000). In fact, the very opposite has been
shown in a number of research studies. Baumeister et al. wrote that the
low-self-esteem theory is not defensible (p. 27), and that it is time to
abandon the quest for direct, simple links between self-esteem and
aggression (p. 28). Some research studies have shown that aggression is
not related to low self-esteem (e.g., Bushman & Baumeister, 1998;
Kernis, Cornell, Sun, Berry, & Harlow, 1993). Instead, this research
reveals that those who aggress are more likely to have high levels of self-
esteem. Nevertheless, other studies do show a relationship between low
self-esteem and aggression (Kernis, Grannemann, & Barclay, 1989;
Papps & OCarroll, 1998) while at the same time suggesting that other
variables (such as narcissism) play a role.
Kohut (1971, 1972) and others (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998;
Kernis & Sun, 1994; Papps & OCarroll, 1998) have identified narcis-
sism as a risk factor for aggressive behavior. Narcissistic personality
Sullivan & Geaslin PREDICTORS OF AGGRESSION 55
traits include the following: a grandiose view of ones self-importance, a
preoccupation with fantasies of success, a belief that one is special or
unique, an inflated sense of entitlement, an interpersonal exploitativeness,
a lack of empathy for others, an envy of others, and an arrogant attitude
(American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2000).
People with narcissistic tendencies seek superiority and dominance
over others to validate their inflated self-perceptions. When others do not
confirm their inflated senses of self-worth and thereby threaten their
self-esteem, narcissistic individuals may react with unwarranted aggres-
sion (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). As the latest Diagnostic and Statis-
tical Manual of Mental Disorders succinctly puts it, when criticized, the
person with narcissistic personality disorder may react with disdain, rage,
or defiant counterattack (APA, 2000, p. 715). Narcissistic rage is also,
according to Kohut (1972), the result of failing to live up to absolutarian
(p. 386) expectations, and it occurs to maintain self-esteem.
Self-esteem may be conceptualized as an overall judgment of ones
self-worth (e.g., Rosenberg, 1979). Individuals with healthy self-esteem
are not prone to aggression and violence when their self-esteem is threat-
ened, unlike those with defensive and fragile self-esteem (Smalley &
Stake, 1996). Hence, individuals with well-founded or realistic self-
esteem may consider themselves worthwhile because they are consciously
and accurately aware of their accomplishments. They are able to internal-
ize their sense of self-worth and accept criticism from others without
having their sense of self shattered or destroyed. Factors leading to the
development of self-esteem are not entirely clear; however, deficits in self-
esteem can be predicted by irrational beliefs (Daly & Burton, 1983).
In addition to the roles of narcissism and self-esteem as antecedents
to aggression, cognitive-behavioral explanations may also be used to
understand and predict aggression. Ellis (1994), Beck (1976), and
Meichenbaums (1994) models of psychopathology and psychotherapy
consider cognitive processes as central to the development and mainte-
nance of psychopathology. Each of these theorists has posited that
environmental stimuli and emotional responses to those stimuli are
mediated by cognitions. Ellis postulated that at the core of human
disturbance exists irrational philosophies or belief systems. He believes
that irrational thinking philosophies are rigid, demanding, and dogmatic.
Ellis (1962) developed a list of eleven irrational beliefs that he
thought would reasonably represent irrational thinking. He posited that
the consequences of ones beliefs determine whether or not the thought
was rational or irrational. Hence, he defined rational thoughts as those
that lead to the fulfillment of ones goals (Ellis, 1984). In contrast,
56 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY
irrational thoughts are those that hinder the achievement of ones goals
and lead to negative behavioral consequences. In addition, Wessler and
Wessler (1980) defined irrational thoughts as those that consist of
opinions derived from non-empirical evidence and tend to be stated in
absolutist language. By modifying dysfunctional cognitions, changes in
behavior and an improved sense of well-being can occur. Ellis devoted a
book (1977) to the relationship between irrational beliefs and anger, and
research has supported this linkage. Research on the link between
irrational beliefs and anger by Ford (1991) found that trait anger was
related to irrational beliefs in a male prison sample. Furthermore, cogni-
tive therapy has been shown to be effective for anger reduction (Hazaleus
& Deffenbacher, 1986).
Research examining the relationship between self-esteem and/or
narcissism and aggression has been mixed. For instance, Kernis and
associates (Kernis, et al., 1993) found that individuals with high, un-
stable self-esteem (self-esteem that fluctuates on a daily basis) were
more likely to be hostile and angry when threatened. In addition, Bush-
man and Baumeister (1998) proposed that high self-esteem is a heteroge-
neous category with links to both extremes of behavior (i.e., violent or
nonviolent). Additionally, Kohut (1971, 1972) postulated that narcissis-
tic individuals hold highly favorable views of themselves that are quite
fragile because they provide a cover-up of underlying insecurity or low
self-esteem.
Keeping in mind the views of Kohut and the findings of Bushman
and Baumeister, it is possible that both self-esteem and narcissism could
be related to violent and aggressive behavior. The narcissistic individual
is highly sensitive to negative evaluations and insults from others, and
those with narcissistic traits are likely to aggress against those who
contradict their views of the self. From a cognitive-behavioral perspec-
tive, it is also important to understand cognitive components of behavior
as they relate to aggression. Since cognitive-behavioral interventions
have shown superior efficacy in the treatment of a variety of psychologi-
cal problems (Nathan & Gorman, 1998), if cognitions are functionally
related to aggression, such interventions may be useful in ameliorating
aggression through secondary or tertiary prevention strategies.
In this investigation, a positive relationship was predicted between
narcissism and aggression; hence, as narcissistic traits increase, an
individual becomes more prone to aggression. Based on the work of
Bushman and Baumeister (1998), a positive correlation was also pre-
dicted between aggression and self-esteem. However, there have been
somewhat disparate findings regarding this relationship. For example,
Bushman and Baumeister found no relationship between aggression and
Sullivan & Geaslin PREDICTORS OF AGGRESSION 57
self-esteem as measured by the Rosenberg (1965) self-esteem scale and
a modified version of the Fleming and Courtney (1984) self-esteem
scale, but other researchers have shown a negative (Papps & OCarroll,
1998) or an inconsistent (Kernis et al., 1989) relationship between these
variables. Irrational beliefs were predicted to have a positive relationship
with aggression; hence, individuals who endorse irrational thinking are
expected to be more prone to aggressive behavior. Examining the unique
contributions of narcissism, self-esteem, and irrational beliefs in predict-
ing aggression using a hierarchical regression strategy was also planned.
METHOD
Participants and Procedures
Participants were 235 undergraduate psychology students (176 [75%]
females and 59 [25%] males) from a Midwestern university who re-
ceived course credit for participation. The mean age of the students was
20.8 years (SD = 3.1) with a range of 1939. Whereas most participants
were White (77%), 17.9% were African American, 3.4% were Hispanic,
.4% were Asian American, and 1.3% endorsed other. Participants
completed the questionnaires in small groups of 3 to 12 people.
Instruments
Aggression. The Aggression Questionnaire (AQ; Buss & Perry,
1992) is a 29-item scale with a Likert-type response format from 1
(extremely uncharacteristic of me) to 5 (extremely characteristic of me).
Responses are summed to create a total aggression score with high scores
indicating aggressive tendencies. In this sample the mean aggression
score was 70.6 (SD = 16.2), and Cronbachs coefficient alpha was .89 for
the full scale. Buss and Perry reported a mean of 77.8 for men and 68.2
for women in a college sample. There are four subscales that assess the
instrumental, cognitive, and affective behavioral domains of aggression.
The scales are Physical Aggression, Verbal Aggression, Anger, and
Hostility. Instrumental aggression is measured by the Physical Aggres-
sion ( = .86) (e.g., Once in a while I cant control the urge to strike
another person) and Verbal Aggression scales ( = .72) (e.g., My
friends say that Im somewhat argumentative.). The cognitive compo-
nent of aggression, which includes feelings of ill will and injustice, is
measured by the Hostility scale ( = .73) (e.g., At times I feel I have
gotten a raw deal out of life.). The emotional or affective components of
aggression are measured by the Anger scale ( = .76) (e.g., I have
trouble controlling my temper.).
Self-Esteem. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg,
1965) is a widely-used measure of self-esteem. The 10-item scale was
58 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY
presented with a 4-point Likert-type response format from 1 (strongly
agree) to 4 (strongly disagree) that was originally scored dichoto-
mously. In this study, the response options were summed to form a total
score with possible scores ranging from 10 to 40. Examples of the items
on the RSES include I feel that Im a person of worth, at least on an
equal plane with others. and On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.
The mean score on the RSES was 31.9 (SD = 5.6), and Cronbachs
coefficient alpha was .87.
The Revised Feelings of Inadequacy Scale (RFIS; Fleming &
Courtney, 1984) is a 36-item self-esteem scale with a seven-point re-
sponse format from 1 (I never) to 7 (I always). Bushman and Baumeister
(1998; Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1993) modified this scale in
their research by administering only the first three of the five subscales
(Self-Regard, Social Confidence, and School Abilities). For this study,
the scale was scored in the same modified format. The Self-Regard
subscale is closest to the unidimensional construct measured by
Rosenbergs scale (1965). To support the validity of the Self-Rating
scale, Fleming and Courtney reported a correlation of r = .78 between
Self-Regard and the Rosenberg scale. Items on the RFIS include Do
you ever think that you are a worthless individual? (Self-Regard; =
.85); When in a group of people, do you have trouble thinking of the
right things to talk about? (Social Confidence; = .87); and How often
do you have trouble understanding things you read for class assign-
ments? (School Abilities; = .78). Higher scores on the Self-Rating
Scale indicate high self-esteem. In this sample, using the modified
scoring method, the full scale mean score was 115.0 (SD = 23.3), and
Cronbachs coefficient alpha was .91. Using data presented in Fleming
and Courtney scores can be calculated for men and women using this
modified format. In Fleming and Courtney, the sum of the mean values
for the Self-Regard, Social Confidence, and School Abilities subscales
was 118.4 for men and 124.5 for women.
Narcissism. The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin &
Terry, 1988) is a 40-item questionnaire with a true-false response for-
mat. The NPI mean score in this sample was 21.2 (SD = 6.2). Raskin and
Terry reported a mean of 15.6 for the full scale NPI. Cronbachs
coefficient alpha on the full scale was .80 in this sample, but some of the
subscales had unacceptably low levels of reliability. Only the subscales
with reliability coefficients above .60 were used in independent analy-
ses. These subscales were Authority ( = .70) (e.g., I would prefer to be
a leader.), Exhibitionism ( = .64) (e.g., Modesty doesnt become
me.), Exploitativeness ( = .61) (e.g., I find it easy to manipulate
Sullivan & Geaslin PREDICTORS OF AGGRESSION 59
people.), and Vanity ( = .66) (e.g., I like to look at my body.). Higher
scores on the NPI indicate higher levels of narcissistic trait endorsement.
Irrational Beliefs. The Survey of Personal Beliefs (SPB; Demaria,
Kassinove, & Dill, 1989) has 50 items and a six-point response format
from 1 (totally agree) to 6 (totally disagree). If scored in the manner
suggested by Demaria et al., higher scores indicate the endorsement of
rational beliefs, and lower scores indicate the endorsement of irrational
beliefs. However, for ease of understanding the present analyses, the
scale was reverse scored so that higher scores relate to higher levels of
irrational beliefs. The five subscales are Awfulizing ( = .63) (e.g., The
way some children behave is just awful.), Self-Directed Shoulds ( =
.66) (e.g., I absolutely should not have made certain obvious mistakes
in life.), Other Directed Shoulds ( = .42) (e.g., If its important to me,
close friends should want to do the favors that I ask of them.), Low
Frustration Tolerance ( = .64) (e.g., There are some things that I just
cant stand.), and Self-Worth ( = .62) (e.g., Being ignored, or being
socially awkward at a party would reduce my sense of self-worth.).
Because of the low reliability of the Other Directed Shoulds subscale, it
was not used in independent analyses. In this sample, with reverse
scoring, the mean SPB score was 208.3 (SD = 21.5), and Cronbachs
coefficient alpha was .83. When scoring the SPB in the traditional
manner, the mean in this sample is 141.7. Demaria et al. found a similar
139.9 mean score in a nonclinical sample.
RESULTS
The descriptive data for the participants on all predictor variables
and the outcome measures are presented in Table 1. Table 2 presents
Pearson correlation coefficients which show a significant positive corre-
lation between aggression and narcissism, a significant inverse correla-
tion between aggression and self-esteem, and a significant positive
correlation between aggression and irrational beliefs. As expected, gen-
der was correlated with aggression with males having higher aggression
scores than females. Self-esteem was positively correlated with narcis-
sism and inversely correlated with irrational beliefs.
It was also important to look at the Aggression Questionnaire (AQ)
subscales (see Table 3) because of the different behavioral domains of
aggression measured (instrumental, cognitive, and affective). The Nar-
cissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) was correlated with Anger, Physi-
cal Aggression, and Verbal Aggression. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale (RSES) was correlated with Anger, Hostility, and Physical Ag-
gression. The Revised Feelings of Inadequacy Scale (RFIS) and the
60 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY
TABLE 1 Descriptive Analyses for Predictor and Outcome
Variables
Variable M SD Range
Aggression 70.6 16.2 35121
Narcissism 21.2 6.2 638
Self-Esteem
a
31.8 5.6 1140
Self-Esteem
b
115.0 23.3 61172
Irrational Beliefs 208.3 21.5 144265
Note: Aggression was measured with the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry,
1992), narcissism was measured with the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin &
Terry, 1988), self-esteem
a
was measured with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (1965),
self-esteem
b
was measured with a shortened version of the Revised Feelings of
Inadequacy Scale (Fleming & Courtney, 1984), and irrational beliefs were measured
with the Survey of Personal Beliefs (Demaria et al.,1989).
N = 235.
TABLE 2 The Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992)
Correlated with the Gender, Narcissism, Self Esteem, and
Irrational Beliefs
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Aggression -.20** .31*** -.31*** -.28*** .15*
2. Gender . -.13* .09 -.06 .19**
3. Narcissism . .21** .22** .01
4. Self-Esteem
a
. .59*** -.14*
5. Self-Esteem
b
. -.39***
6. Irrational Beliefs .
Note. Gender is coded male = 0 and female = 1. Narcissism was measured with the
Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin & Terry, 1988), self-esteem
a
was measured
with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (1965), self-esteem
b
was measured with a
shortened version of the Revised Feelings of Inadequacy Scale (Fleming & Courtney,
1984), and irrational beliefs were measured with the Survey of Personal Beliefs
(Demaria et al., 1989).
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.
Sullivan & Geaslin PREDICTORS OF AGGRESSION 61
TABLE 4 The Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) and
its Subscales Correlated with the Narcissistic Personality
Inventory (Raskin & Terry, 1988) and its Subscales
Aggression Physical Verbal
Question- Aggres- Aggres-
naire Anger Hostility sion sion
Narcissism .31*** .16* .10 .30*** .42***
Authority .14* .08 -.04 .14* .29***
Exhibitionism .31*** .24** .22** .25*** .24***
Exploitativeness .23** .12 -.01 .27*** .32***
Vanity .13* .00 .05 .17** .18**
Note. N = 235.
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.
TABLE 3 The Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) and
its Subscales (Anger, Hostility, Physical Aggression,
Verbal Aggression) Correlated with the Narcissism, Self
Esteem, and Irrational Beliefs
Aggression Physical Verbal
Question- Aggres- Aggres-
naire Anger Hostility sion sion
Narcissism .31*** .16* .11 .30*** .42***
Self-Esteem
a
-.31*** -.29*** -.47*** -.13* .01
Self-Esteem
b
-.28*** -.29*** -.52*** -.06 .06
Irrational Beliefs .15* .21*** .32*** -.04 -.02
Note. Narcissism was measured with the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin &
Terry, 1988), self-esteem
a
was measured with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (1965),
self-esteem
b
was measured with a shortened version of the Revised Feelings of
Inadequacy Scale (Fleming & Courtney, 1984), and irrational beliefs were measured
with the Survey of Personal Beliefs (Demaria et al., 1989).
N = 235.
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.
62 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY
Survey of Personal Beliefs (SPB) were both correlated with Anger and
Hostility. To gain more information on the relationship between these
variables, the NPI and SPB subscale correlations with the AQ subscales
were also examined. The NPI Authority subscale was correlated with
Physical Aggression and Verbal Aggression (See Table 4). The NPI
Exhibitionism subscale was correlated with Anger, Hostility, Physical
Aggression, and Verbal Aggression. The NPI Exploitativeness subscale
was correlated with Physical Aggression and Verbal Aggression. The
NPI Vanity subscale was correlated with Physical Aggression and Ver-
bal Aggression. The SPB Low Frustration Tolerance subscale correlated
with Anger and Hostility (See Table 5). The SPB Awfulizing subscale
correlated with Hostility, and the Self-Worth subscale correlated with
Hostility and Physical Aggression.
A hierarchical regression strategy was used to test the unique
contributions of narcissism, self-esteem, and irrational beliefs in respon-
dents self-reported aggression. Gender was entered first to control for
the known relationship between aggression and gender (Buss & Perry,
1992). Three regression models were examined with narcissism, self-
esteem, and irrational beliefs entered as the last predictor variable in each
model. By entering each variable last, the amount of variance accounted
for by each predictor over and above the variance accounted for by the
other predictors in the model could be determined. The two self-esteem
TABLE 5 The Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) and
its Subscales Correlated with the Survey of Personal
Beliefs (Demaria et al., 1989) and its Subscales
Aggression Physical Verbal
Question- Aggres- Aggres-
naire Anger Hostility sion sion
Rational Beliefs .15* .21*** .32*** -.04 -.02
Awfulizing .14* .12 .23*** .05 .01
Self-Directed
Shoulds .05 .11 .10 -.05 .00
Low Frustration
Tolerance .27*** .30*** .44*** .09 -.02
Self-Worth -.01 .11 .16** -.15* -.13
N = 235
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Sullivan & Geaslin PREDICTORS OF AGGRESSION 63
variables were entered as a set. The overall equation was significant and
explained 27.7% of the variance in aggression, F(5, 229) = 19.0, p < .001.
When entered into the regression equation last, narcissism accounted for
13.6% of the variance in aggression (F change [1, 229] = 44.1, p < .001).
When the self-esteem variables were entered last as a set, they accounted
for 13.5% of the variance in aggression (F change [1, 229] = 21.9, p <
.001). When the irrational beliefs predictor was entered last, it accounted
for 0.3% of the variance in aggression (F change [1, 229] = 1.0, p > .05).
As illustrated in these regression equations, both narcissism and self-
esteem were associated with aggression scores even after controlling for
the variables entered in the prior steps. Irrational beliefs did not account
for more variance in the prediction of aggression over and above the
variance already accounted for by gender, narcissism, and self-esteem.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study confirmed the findings of Bushman and
Baumeister (1998) and others (Baumeister et al., 2000; Papps & OCarroll,
1998) which have shown that narcissism is related to aggression. Not
only was narcissism correlated with aggression, the hierarchical regres-
sion analyses showed that it accounted for unique variance in the
prediction of aggression even after accounting for the variance associ-
ated with the other predictor variables. Therefore, these findings suggest
that individuals higher in narcissistic traits are more likely to be aggres-
sive. Narcissism was strongly related to the instrumental behavioral
domain of aggression. Of the NPI subscales with adequate levels of
reliability, only the Exhibitionism subscale was related to either the
Anger or Hostility subscales. Therefore, these correlations show that the
instrumental domain of aggression is related to narcissism more than the
cognitive or affective domains. Since the instrumental behavioral do-
main of aggression includes both verbal and physical aggression, it is
clear that narcissism is an important factor in overt aggression as others
have found (e.g., Baumeister et al., 2000).
The findings showed a negative relationship between self-esteem
and aggression rather than the hypothesized positive relationship. Inter-
estingly, the prior research in this area gave some reason to question
whether this hypothesis would be substantiated. For example, Bushman
and Baumeister (1998) found no evidence for low self-esteem being
related to aggression and some support for high self-esteem being related
to aggression (Baumeister et al., 2000). On the other hand, research
studies by Papps and OCarroll (1998) and Kernis et al. (1989) have
shown a relationship between low self-esteem and aggression. In this
64 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY
study, the same instruments were used that Bushman and Baumeister
(1998) used to measure self-esteem, and yet the results were quite
different. Zero-order correlations and the regression analyses both showed
that low self-esteem was related to aggression.
There are a number of reasons that may explain why the findings
were different from Bushman and Baumeisters. This study was correla-
tional in design and measured aggression with a self-report question-
naire. Their studies (e.g., Baumeister et al., 1993; Bushman & Baumeister,
1998) have, for the most part, been experimental in design and have
utilized behavioral measures of aggression. Examining the zero-order
correlations may reveal why the behavioral measures of aggression do
not show a relationship between self-esteem and aggression. The corre-
lations of self-esteem were related to the cognitive and affective domains
of aggression and not the instrumental domain. Since it is the instrumen-
tal domain of the Aggression Questionnaire that assesses Physical and
Verbal Aggression, and these would be most similar to a behavioral
measure of overt aggression, this could explain why self-esteem was
correlated with aggression in this study and has not been related to
aggression in Bushman and Baumeisters studies. However, the hierar-
chical regression analysis showed that self-esteem accounted for 13.5%
additional variance in the prediction of aggression over and above that
already accounted for by narcissism, irrational beliefs, and gender.
Therefore, even though the research design and measurement strategies
used were different, it is clear that both narcissism and self-esteem are
important variables in the prediction of aggression.
Irrational beliefs were related to aggression in the zero-order corre-
lations but not in the hierarchical regression model. Like self-esteem,
irrational beliefs were correlated with the affective and cognitive do-
mains of aggression and not the instrumental domain. The Low Frustra-
tion Tolerance subscale was the only subscale correlated with the affec-
tive domain of aggression (i.e., Anger). The Awfulzing, Low Frustration
Tolerance, and Self-Worth subscales were all correlated with the cogni-
tive domain of aggression (i.e., Hostility).
The regression strategy used revealed that irrational beliefs did not
account for any unique variance in the prediction of aggression above
that already accounted for by gender, narcissism and self-esteem. It is
possible that another measure of irrational beliefs may have been supe-
rior to the questionnaire method that was used. Eckhardt, Barbour, and
Davison (1998) used the Articulated Thoughts in Simulated Situations
method to measure cognitions related to anger arousal and found it
superior to questionnaire measures of cognitive distortions. This method
involves having the respondents voice their thoughts and feelings out
Sullivan & Geaslin PREDICTORS OF AGGRESSION 65
loud while listening to anger-inducing scenarios on audiotapes. Measur-
ing the respondents cognitions in this manner may be a more effective
way to access the affect-relevant cognitions that might lead to aggressive
behavior.
From the perspective of cognitive-behavioral theory (Beck, 1976;
Ellis, 1994; Meichenbaum, 1994), the modification of dysfunctional
beliefs holds some promise in reducing anger and its expression in
aggressive behavior. Such treatments can also be used to improve self-
esteem and to treat personality disorders (Beck & Freeman, 1990). In the
case of each of the variables examined in this study as possible anteced-
ents to aggression, cognitive-behavioral treatments could provide effec-
tive aggression-reduction options for the individual. Improved measure-
ment techniques may reveal that irrational beliefs have a more substan-
tial contribution to aggression than were found in this study. Future
research studies that use different measurement techniques may capture
a more accurate representation of the emotional and cognitive anteced-
ents to aggressive behavior.
This study showed that narcissism is related to the instrumental
behavioral domain of aggression, whereas self-esteem and irrational
beliefs were related to the cognitive and affective domains. Baumeister
et al. (2000) have argued that we should cease looking for direct and
simple links between self-esteem and aggression. No doubt, the links
between aggression and its various antecedents are complex and are
probably multifactorial with personality and situational factors both
playing a role.
66 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (4th ed., Text Revision). Washington, DC: Author.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Baumeister, R.F., Bushman, B.J., & Campbell, W.K. (2000). Self-esteem,
narcissism, and aggression: Does violence result from low self-esteem or
from threatened egoism? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9,
26-29.
Baumeister, R.F., Heatherton, T.F., & Tice, D.M. (1993). When ego threats lead
to self-regulation failure: Negative consequences of high self-esteem.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 141-156.
Beck, A.T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York:
New American Liberty.
Beck, A.T., & Freeman, A.M. (1990). Cognitive therapy of personality disor-
ders. New York: Guilford Press.
Berkowitz, L. (1990). On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression:
A cognitive-neoassociationistic analysis. American Psychologist, 45, 494-
503.
Bushman, B.J., & Baumeister, R.F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-
esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead
to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219-229.
Buss, A.H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley.
Buss, A.H. (1986). Social behavior and personality. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Buss, A.H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 452-460.
Daly, M.J., & Burton, R.L. (1983). Self-esteem and irrational beliefs: An
exploratory investigation with implications for counseling. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 3, 361-366.
Demaria, T., Kassinove, H., & Dill, C. (1989). Psychometric properties of the
Survey of Personal Beliefs: A rational-emotive measure of irrational think-
ing. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 329-341.
Dollard, J., Dobb, L., Miller, N., Mowrer, O., & Sears, R. (1939). Frustration and
aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Eckhardt, C.J., Barbour, K.A., & Davison, G.C. (1998). Articulated thoughts of
maritally violent and nonviolent men during anger arousal. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 259-269.
Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. New York: Lyle Stuart.
Ellis, A. (1977). Anger: How to live with and without it. New York: Citadel.
Ellis, A. (1984). Expanding the ABCs of RET. Journal of Rational Emotive
Therapy, 2, 20-24.
Ellis, A. (1994). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy (2nd Ed.). Secaucus, NJ
: Carol Publishing Group.
Fleming, J.S., & Courtney, B.E. (1984). The dimensionality of self-esteem: II.
Hierarchical facet model for revised measurement scales. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 46, 404-421.
Ford, B.D. (1991). Anger and irrational beliefs in violent inmates. Personality
and Individual Differences, 12, 211-215.
Hazaleus, S.L., & Deffenbacher, J.L. (1986). Relaxation and cognitive treat-
ments of anger. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 222-
226.
Sullivan & Geaslin PREDICTORS OF AGGRESSION 67
Kernis, M.H., Cornell, D.P., Sun, C.R., Berry, A., & Harlow, T. (1993). Theres
more to self-esteem than whether it is high or low: The importance of
stability of self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,
1190-1204.
Kernis, M.H., Grannemann, B.D., & Barclay, L.C. (1989). Stability and level of
self-esteem as predictors of anger arousal and hostility. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 56, 1013-1022.
Kernis, M.H., & Sun, C.R. (1994). Narcissism and reactions to interpersonal
feedback. Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 4-13.
Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. New York: International Universities
Press.
Kohut, H. (1972). Thoughts on narcissism and narcissistic rage. Psychoanalytic
Study of the Child, 27, 360-400.
Meichenbaum, D. (1994). A clinical handbook/practical therapist manual for
assessing and treating adults with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Waterloo, Ontario: Institute Press.
Nathan, P.E., & Gorman, J.M. (1998). A guide to treatments that work. New
York: Oxford.
Papps, B.P., & OCarroll, R.E. (1998). Extremes of self-esteem and narcissism
and the experience and expression of anger and aggression. Aggressive
Behavior, 24, 421-438.
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal components analysis of the Narcis-
sistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890-902.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Schoenfeld, C.G. (1988). Blacks and violent crime: A psychoanalytically ori-
ented analysis. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 16, 269-301.
Smalley, R.L., & Stake, J.E. (1996). Evaluating sources of ego-threatening
feedback: Self-esteem and narcissism effects. Journal of Research in
Personality, 30, 483-495.
Staub, E. (1996). Altruism and aggression in children and youth: Origins and
cures. In R.S. Feldman (Ed.), The psychology of adversity (pp. 115-144).
Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Toch, H. (1969). Violent men: An inquiry into the psychology of violence.
Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Youth violence: A
report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. [On-line] Available: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/
library/youthviolence.
Wessler, R.A., & Wessler, R.L. (1980). The principles and practice of rational-
emotive therapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.