A further comment on the construct validity of laboratory aggression paradigms: A response to giancola and chermack |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY USA;2. Research Institute on Addictions, Buffalo, NY USA;1. PhD Program in Biological and Health Sciences, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana (UAM) Iztapalapa-Xochimilco-Cuajimalpa, Mexico City, Mexico;2. Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Tlalnepantla, Estado de México, Mexico;3. Department of Neurosciences, National Rehabilitation Institute “Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra” (INR) Secretaría de Salud (SSA), Mexico City, Mexico;4. Departament of Reproductive Biology, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana (UAM) Campus Iztapalapa, Mexico City, Mexico;1. Fine Dust Research Department, Korea Institute of Energy Research, 152 Gajeong-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34129, South Korea;2. University of Science and Technology, 217 Gajeong-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 34113, South Korea |
| |
| Abstract: | Giancola and Chermack responded to our criticisms of laboratory paradigms for studying aggression by arguing that two existing laboratory procedures circumvent the problems raised, and they provide evidence for the validity of these procedures. We argue that Giancola and Chermack do not succeed in their defense of existing paradigms for both conceptual and methodological reasons. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
