questionnaire of aggressiveness in sport and business

Questionnaire of aggressiveness in sport and business

Ryszard Makarowski1, University of GdańskMieczysław Plopa, University of Finances and Management in Warsaw, Elbląg University of Humanities and EconomyAnna Skuzińska, Elbląg University of Humanities and EconomyMarcin Marszałł, Medical University of Gdańsk

Abstract1

Aggression is a process, aggressiveness is a characteristic. This article inclu-des the comprehensive data about the Aggressiveness in Sport and IN Business Questionnaire. There have been described three major characteristics of the ag-gressiveness: in sport and in business: 1. “Go-ahead”: means persistent pursuit of a goal regardless of emerging obstacles. “Go-ahead” means also truculence and aggressive entrepreneurship. 2. Tripping someone up: individual characterized by this kind of aggressiveness does not have scruples, is interested only in his own business, and consider it normal when he occasionally must claw his way. 3. Assertiveness: individual characterized by this kind of aggressiveness acts and express their opinion in a courageous way in spite of impending potential nega-tive consequences. In this article we present the analysis of the reliability and validity of the Aggressiveness in Sport and Business Questionnaire which was realized on a sample of nearly 4000 people. The text of the questionnaire and the method of computing results were presented at the end of the article.

Keywords:

go-ahead, assertiveness, sport, business, confirmatory factor analysis

1 Corresponding author: [email protected].

8 Ryszard Makarowski, Mieczysław Plopa, Anna Skuzińska, Marcin Marszałł

Introduction

Aggression is a well-known phenomenon, but yet there has not been established a commonly accepted psychological definition of “aggression” (Aronson, 1999; Bandura, 1968; Buss, 1961; Deffenbacher, 2008; Walters 1968; Grunt-Meier, Grunt-Meier 2011; Frączek, 1979, 1980; Krahe 2006; Kubacka-Jasiecka, 2006; Loeber, Hay 1997; Majchrzyk, Terelak, 2011; Nie-hoff 2001; Roberton, Daffern, Bucks, 2012; Wojciszke, 2011; Wolińska, 2010; Wałęcka-Matyja, 2009; Wolska, 1997).

It is necessary to distinguish aggression from aggressiveness; although these terms sounds similarly, their sense is different. “Aggression is a process, i.e. the course of successive connections, casually connected changes, making up successive stages, phases of individual’s activities, whereas aggressive-ness is a personality trait, that differentiates one individual from another in the ambient reality. Aggressiveness consists in the occurrence of frequent ag-gressive reactions” (Maciaszczyk, 2010, p. 61).

The way of definition formulation depends on the theoretical framing adopted. The ethnologists consider aggression an instinctive pattern of behav-iour, developed evolutionally as a response to a specific stimulus, for example seizure of territory, attack on offspring. Alfred Adler believed that aggression was the desire to control others. Researchers linking frustration to aggression presume that aggression is a reaction to an obstacle. Theoreticians that rep-resent the social learning trend think that we learn aggression observing and imitating aggressive behaviours, especially when the individual is rewarded for such a behaviour (Ó Ciardha, Gannon, 2012).

“The most frequently adopted definition considers aggression a behav-iour directed to inflict pain to other human being, who is motivated to avoid it” Wojciszke (2011, p 375). “I would define the act of aggression as a behav-iour aimed at cause damage or pain” (Aronson 1999, p. 303). A.H. Buss (1961) introduced the notion of aggressiveness as a personality variable (trait and state) formed by habits. He considers aggressiveness as a habit to attack, as an individual’s relatively stable characteristic consisting on frequent and in-adequate to the stimulus, highly intensive reactions.

We can encounter aggression and violence in very different life domains included sport and business (Szmajke, 1993, Szmajke, Pawłowska, Wiliński, 2005, Szmajke, 2005). B.F. Husman, J.M. Silva (1984) identify three types

9Questionnaire of aggressiveness in sport and business

of aggression in sport: 1) proactive assertiveness, 2) instrumental aggres-sion, 3) reactive aggression. Instrumental aggression is defined as a means to reach a goal. These authors assume aggression to be audacious and energetic striving for a goal. In turn, J. Thirer (1993) thinks that aggression in sport appears as:

1. Non-destructive aggression, identified with assertiveness. This type of aggression is characterized by self-defence and disposition to re-ach goals

2. Angry aggression, that is connected to destructiveness, anger, har-ming, hate, revenge and rage.

T. Rychta (2004, p. 196) writes that in sport we find also such an understan-ding of aggression that can express normal and positive adaptive behaviour, close to non-destructive aggression or close to assertiveness. Many trainers and sport journalist believes that aggression in sport is a positive behaviour, an expected way of reaching success (Donahue, Rip, Vallerand 2009; Jarvis 2003; Kalina, Kałużny, 2002, p. 48).

It is presumed that four factors determine the level of aggressiveness (Maxwell 2009; Makarowski, Peplińska, Nowopolski, 2010; Russell 2008; Rowe 1998):

1. the frequency of occurrence of antecedents eliciting and preceding aggression (attack, frustration, unpleasant and irritating stimuli),

2. the recompense for aggressive reactions, it may be also the decrease of emotional strain after aggressive act or elimination of the frustra-tion root,

3. social reinforcement (for example group approval, frequent provoca-tion to aggression),

4. innate biological predispositions, temperament comprised first of all.

J. Archer (1988) has proposed a classification based on the functions ful-filled by different types of behaviour:

Functional aggression (the aim is the problem resolution)1. defensive aggression – the problem to solve is the physical attack

threat2. parental aggression – the problem to solve is threat to offspring3. rivalry aggression – the problem to solve is appropriate resource

distribution.


Defensive aggression serves the defence against the danger. This danger may be for example pain or death.

Parental aggression is to some extent a type of defensive aggression, since its aim is to avert danger threatening offspring.

The aim of rivalry aggression is to repulse dangers that could cause the de-crease of resource such as food, good mood, social position. Sexual partners, calm or life space are also examples of such a resources (Hobfoll 1998, 2006).

In sport as in business, dynamic, active and go-ahead people achieve success; finally the spirit on enterprise is a way of thinking and acting ori-ented at the success. Those people are characterised by expansiveness, that is the intention to equal the best and the strongest ones, and by taking aim at ambitious goals to achieve greater advantages, greater resources (Gracz, Sankowski 2007, p. 182). “Go-ahead” is linked not only with aggression, but alto with risk (Castanier, Le Scanff 2010; Lewellyn, Sanchez 2008). A passive individual is the opposite to a go-ahead one. People (including sportsmen, business people) may be characterised as: submissive, aggressive or assertive ones (Ubertowski 2011).

Submission signifies to respect the rights of other people and to disregard one’s own rights. Assertiveness signifies respecting the rights of other people and to respects one’s own rights. Aggressiveness signifies respecting one’s own rights and disregarding the rights of other people.

Assertiveness alike aggressiveness is considered a personality trait and is conditioned by genes, and by the same is related to temperament (Rich, Schroedre 1976, Terelak, Goleń, 2011).

There exist many assertiveness classifications, among other: positive as-sertiveness (appreciative), negative assertiveness (hostile) (Wolpe, 1969). A. Arrdinell et al. (1988) distinguishes four types of assertiveness: 1) display of negative feelings, 2) recognition and treatment one’s own deficiencies, 3) initiated assertiveness, 4) praising other people and ability to receive com-pliments. High assertiveness is related to louder speech, frank look, faster reaction, making longer statements, more straightforward feelings expression, less compliance, demands of bigger changes in other people´s behaviour (Oleś, 1988). The lack of assertive skills followed by negative self-esteem, may gen-erate hostile aggression and personality disorders (Maciaszczyk, 2010, p. 41).

On the basis of available literature and our own experience we as-sume that aggressiveness in sport and in business consists of three factors:


1) “Go-ahead”, 2) “Tripping someone up”, 3) “Assertiveness”. “Tripping some-one up” is the closest to the classic assertiveness definition, thus to activities aimed at prevent sport or business opponent from achieving their goals, and thus to increase the probability of one’s own achievements. These factors in-terdependencies are presented at figure 1.

Figure 1. Aggressiveness factors in sport and in business

In sum we can say that the aggression specificity depends on people it re-lates to. Aggression in sport and in business may be more humane than typical aggression as it is commonly understood i.e. aggression as a synonym of evil (in the moral sense) and as a sin (in the religious sense) (Anderson, Bushman, 2002). Not always aggression must be expressed in inflicting harm, pain and in humiliating other people.

KAwSiB’s construction

Referring to theoretical descriptions of different types of aggressiveness two independent versions of items characterizing „Go-ahead”, “Tripping someone up” and “Assertiveness” were prepared. As a result of the analy-sis of similarities and differences one common version was created, which contained 15 items for each type of risk. This list was then passed to twelve raters (three-year and four-year psychology students) whose task consisted in assignment of individual items into three main categories. Items with inter-rater reliability higher than 70% were included into primary questionnaire version. Thus a list of 30 items was created (including ten items for each type of aggressiveness). This list was the object of further psychometric analysis.


Then first psychometric analysis were realized, aimed at determine the discriminatory power of each item. The factor analysis was realized on a mixed group of 686 individuals of two sexes. At this stage we assumed that the basis of any decision should be the theoretical consistency, especially about the aggressiveness rating. This is why we conducted only the factor analysis restricted to three types of aggression studied without any addition-al exploratory analysis. The criterion of item inclusion in a give factor was the factor weight higher than 0.70 in a given category. This analysis results demonstrated that it was necessary to limit the number of items to five per each type of aggressiveness studied: „Go-ahead”, „Tripping someone up”, “Aassertiveness”. Then detailed psychometric analysis was conducted on two independent groups.

First group numbered 686 individuals (522 women and 164 men; M = 31,10; SD = 10,54; age minimum = 19, age maximum = 82).

Second group numbered 2499 individuals (1335 women and 862 men; M = 24,39; SD = 9,16; age minimum = 19, age maximum = 82).

Study participants were University of Gdansk full-time law and psychol-ogy students, Elblag University of Humanities and Economy extramural physiotherapy, medical recue, pedagogy students and Gdansk University of Humanities pedagogy students with their acquaintances.

Reliability and discriminatory power of KAwSiB items

The reliability rates of three scales (dimensions) and discriminatory power of each item based on data from a study on 686 adult Polish men and women are presented in Table 1. The analysis results indicate that the three formed scales reliability is highly satisfying for two sexes. It must be noticed that the reliability rates of female and male scales are similar, so it is possible to say that The Questionnaire of the Aggressiveness in Sport and in Business is an equally reliable measure of aggressiveness as for women as for men.


Table 1. Characteristics of individual KAwSiB’s items and scales reliabilities

All Women MenVariable

Number of items

(N = 686) (N = 522) (N = 164)

Cronbach’s

AlphaAverage

rCronbach’s

AlphaAverage

rCronbach’s

AlphaAverage

r

„Go-ahead” 5 0,83 0,51 0,83 0,49 0,85 0,53

“Tripping someone up”

5 0,86 0,57 0,84 0,53 0,89 0,64

„Assertiveness” 5 0,89 0,61 0,88 0,61 0,88 0,58

In Tables 2–4 the point-biserial correlation coefficient was used as the measure of discriminatory power of questionnaire items (rpbi) (Brzeziński, 1996, pp. 507–512). This coefficient value varies in the range of <–1, +1>. The advantage of this coefficient is the possibility to use it even when the re-sults distributions differ from the normal.

Table 2. Summary of the internal consistency analysis of the „Go-ahead” scale

Item number Discriminatory Power rpbi Cronbach’s Alpha if item deleted

1 0,64 0,802 0,60 0,813 0,61 0,814 0,65 0,805 0,68 0,79

Alpha = 0,83; average r = 0,51

Table 3. Summary of the internal consistency analysis of “Tripping someone up”scale

Item number Discriminatory Power rpbi Cronbach’s Alpha if item deleted

6 0,64 0,837 0,76 0,808 0,76 0,809 0,65 0,83

10 0,56 0,86Alpha = 0,85; average r = 0,57


Table 4. Summary of the internal consistency analysis of “Assertiveness” scale

Item number Discriminatory Power rpbi Cronbach’s Alpha if item deleted11 0,76 0,8612 0,74 0,8613 0,74 0,8614 0,71 0,8715 0,68 0,87Alpha = 0,89; average r = 0,61

KAwSiB’s validity

The validity evaluation of the Questionnaire of the Aggressiveness in Sport and in Business was based on two types of construct validity (Aranow-ska, 2005, Hornowska, 2005, Brzeziński, 2005): factor validity and criterion validity. The analysis of the correlation matrix that serve the evaluation of cri-terion validity and construct validity, consist on the analysis of correlation coefficients of the created questionnaire with other tests for example with A. Buss and M. Perry Questionnaire of Aggressiveness or with IPSA II. The aim of these analyses was the estimation of the studied questionnaire correlation coefficients and the results of others test measuring similar features. In order to recognize a test as theoretically valid it is not enough to show – according to Campell and Fiskie – the results correlate sufficiently highly with the results of other tests (so called convergent validity aspect), but also it is necessary to show the results not to correlate with the results of the measures of other features (so called discriminant validity aspect) (Hornowska, 2005, p. 96).

Factor validity

The factor validity permit to determine the structure (simplified mod-el) of the construct studied and to define the degree in which this structure reflect the multidimensional, complex relationships inside studied phenom-enon, portrayed by latent variables.

In the analysis of KAwSiB’s factor validity we used the technique of confirm-atory factor analysis that permit to verify the hypothesis that the theoretically


assumed 3–factor aggressiveness types structure fit good to the data observed in empirical studies (Gaul, Machowski, 2004, Konarski, 2009). We realised the confirmatory factor analysis using the maximum likelihood method for the structural model, presented at the figure below.

Figure 2. The result model of the risk’s factor structure of the KAwSiB questionnaire (first group N = 686)


Each of these factors was identified as antecedent of observed behavioural factors respectively. At the same time the variance of each latent factor was defined as equal to the variance of the observed indicator respectively, ac-cording to the figure above.

Evaluations of structural model goodness

The structural model test consist in verification of the path coefficient’s significance level and in verification of how good the endogenous latent vari-ables are explained by the model. It is also worth to verify if the coefficients’ signs are consistent with what was expected.

To evaluate the model we start with the verification of the measurement models. The principles are the same as for the factor analysis: the standard-ized path factors’ loadings should not to exceed 0,70. In case of the latent variables: „Go-ahead”, “Tripping someone up”, “Assertiveness”, the standard-ized path coefficients are presented in Table 5 and in Figure 2.

Table 5. Factor loadings in the three-factor model

Questionnaire item

Factor loadings

Group I (N = 686) Group II (N = 2499) 1 0,58 0,60

2 0,76 0,65 Factor I: „Go-ahead” 3 0,78 0,63

4 0,70 0,53 5 0,70 0,66 6 0,59 0,71

7 0,54 0,74 Factor II: „Tripping someone 8 0,58 0,79up” 9 0,53 0,75

10 0,60 0,6011 0,69 0,7412 0,65 0,78

Factor II: „Assertiveness” 13 0,76 0,7414 0,76 0,7115 0,59 0,65


All parameters in the structural model are significant (p<0,001). So we can find all variables to have satisfactory loadings.

Assessment of fit

There is no consensus on the most appropriate measures for assess the fit of the model, in that case several goodness of fit measures are employed. Most of standard model measures permit only to compare models and not to objec-tively assess their fit with the exception of commonly recommended RMSEA, GFI and AGFI (Konarski, 2009, p. 373, Szcześniak, 2009, p. 226, Książek, 2010, Karasiewicz, Makarowski, 2012).

In Table 6 we present six indices of model fit.

Table 6. Indices of model fit in two independent groups

Measures of model fit RMSEA PCLOSE Chi-squared df p GFI ECFI

First group (N = 686) 0,057 0,058 267,83 87 <0,001 0,943 0,529

Second group (N = 2499) 0,055 0,020 732,58 87 <0,001 0,961 0,320

The RMSEA value in the first group (N = 686) is 0,057 (LO90 = 0,050; HI90 = 0,065). In the second group (N = 3499) RMSEA = 0,055 (LO90 = 0,051; HI90 = 0,058). It is assumed that the RMSEA value of 0,08 is yet acceptable. The value of the PCLOSE, which is called test of close-fit of the empirical results matrix with the theoretical model, equals 0,058 in the first group and 0,020 in the second group; it is also the evidence for the model’s goodness of fit with the data. In turn, the GFI coefficient describe to what degree the sam-ple covariance are explained by the covariance resulting from the model. For the saturated model the value is 1 and it is assumed that the GFI should exceed 0,90. In the first group it comes to 0,943, and in the second group it comes to 0,961. The properties of the chi-squared distribution, known as CMIN (coming to 267,83 in the first group, and coming to 732,58 in the second group) brings about the possibility to reject the null hypothesis and discredit the model when the sample is big, meanwhile the model can be by all means acceptable. The criterion of model acceptance is the value of chi-square and it should be statistically non significant. In our case in the first group it is smaller than


0,001 and in the second group it is also smaller than 0,001 (Konarski 2009 p. 369, 2010; Karasiewicz, Makarowski, 2012; Książek, 2010; Segan, 2003, p. 81; Szcześniak, 2009; Zakrzewska, 2004, p. 460). In sum we can state that the model’s goodness of fit test presented above for the two studied groups respond positively to the question: Can the hypothetically assumed model be verified be means of the matrix data results distribution?

To further verify the validity we tested the hypothesis that the three-factor KAwSiB model have exactly the same factor loadings and correlation strength for these factors in the group of men and in the group of women. For this purpose we tested two models: a) the null hypothesis – the factor structure of KAwSiB is the same in the population of men and women and b) the second hypothesis – the factor structure of KAwSiB is different in two tested popula-tions. It is necessary to add that the results presented below relate to the first studied group of 686 people, while the results of the second group of 2499 people (1335 women, 862 men; M = 24,39; SD = 8,16) was very similar. As it is shown in Table 7, there exist statistically significant differences between women and men concerning the level of „Go-ahead”, “Tripping someone up” and “Assertiveness”. The higher mean level of these factors was fund in men.

Table 7. Differences in assertiveness degree in the group of women and in the group of men

Variable N N M M t p Cohen’s d Women Men Women Men„Go-ahead” 452 180 14,80 15,37 –1,66 0,097 0,15„Tripping someone up”

452 180 8,76 10,18 –4,41 >0,001 0,38

„Assertiveness” 452 180 17,63 19,36 –5,45 >0,001 0,49

We assumed that the principal factors can (but not must) be correlated with one another. With reference to confirmatory factor analysis we have pre-sented on figure below factor loadings of all items.


Figure 3. The outcome diagram of KAwSiB’s structure in the group

of women


Figure 4. The outcome diagram of KAwSiB’s structure in the group of men

In the women group the correlation between „Go-ahead” and „Tripping someone up” was 0,74 and in the group of men it was 0,84 (very strong corre-lation). The correlation between „ Tripping someone up” and “Assertiveness’ in women was 0,19 and in men 0,05 (weak correlation). Whereas the correla-tion between „Go-ahead” and “Assertiveness” in women was 0,31 and in men 0,34 (moderate correlation). Then we can state that in the studied population the correlation between factors was similar; which allow us to ascertain with high probability that the factor structure is the same.

In the Table 8 below the model goodness of fit indices are presented.


Table 8. Goodness of fit indices of the model in the group of women and in the group of men

Model goodness of fit indices

RMSEA PCLOSE Chi square df p GFI AGFI

Women’s group (N = 452) 0,056 0,131 212,03 87 <0,001 0,937 0,914

Men’s group (N = 180) 0,063 0,111 148,43 87 <0,001 0,889 0,848

The goodness of fit indices of the model testing the alternative hypoth-esis are very satisfactory and similar to the indices of the model assuming that the hypothesis on different factor structure of KAwSiB in two populations studied is true.

In the last step we compared also the factor structure of KAwSiB in two populations: characterized by high and low level of „Go-ahead”, „Tripping someone up” and “Assertiveness”. We did it according to the hypothesis sup-posing that the factor structure may be different for the high, moderate and low aggressiveness level. For this purpose we use the median to divide people into two groups: those obtaining high general score and those obtaining low general score (the general score is the sum of scores in „Go-ahead”, „Tripping someone up” and “Assertivenss” subscales). Then we compared the factor structure in these two populations in an analogous way as it was done for two sexes, the results are presented below, in Table 9.

Table 9. The goodness of fit indices of the models testing the hypothesis that assumed the similarity of KAwSiB’s factor structure depending on the aggressiveness level

Model goodness of fit indices

RMSEA PCLOSE Chi square p GFI AGFI

General score KAwSiB – low scores

0,053 0,332 163,50 <0,001 0,930 0,904

General score KAwSiB – high scores

0,060 0,073 187,74 <0.001 0,921 0,891

The results indicate – similarly as for sex – that there is no difference re-garding the goodness of fit of the two models testing the null and alternative hypothesis. Then it is possible to state that the factor structure of the KAwSiB


is the same in the population with high and with low aggressiveness level. In other words, the results obtained with KAwSiB are similarly reliable and valid, regardless of the intensity of reported aggressiveness level.

Criterion validity

The questionnaire empirical criterion validity was determined based on the correlation coefficient analysis with other measures of psychological characteristics obtained for the same sample (Hornowska, 2005, pp. 90–93). Detailed analysis of these relationships permit to determine the convergent and discriminant validity aspect. In the case of the assessment of the aggressiveness measurement (including „Go-ahead”, „Tripping someone up” and “Assertive-ness”) we verified the existing relationships using measures listed below:1. Aggression Questionnaire (A. Buss and M. Perry, 1992) The Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire measures the level of physical

aggression, verbal aggression, anger and hostility. The Authors point out that physical and verbal aggression constitute behavioural component of human behaviour. In Their opinion anger is related to physical arousal and constitute affective component of human behaviour. Whereas the fe-elings of grudge, dislike and injustice represent the cognitive component of behaviour (Tucholska, 1998).

2. Psychological Aggression Syndrome Inventory (IPSA II) Z. Gaś (1987) This inventory measures following aggression categories: 1. factor –

tendency to revenge behaviour, 2. factor – tendency to self-destruction, 3. factor – aggression regulation disorders, 4. factor – displaced aggres-sion, 5. factor – unconscious aggressive tendencies 6. factor – indirect aggression, 7. factor – instrumental aggression 8. factor – self-hostility, 9. factor – physical aggression directed outside, 10. factor – hostility di-rected outside, 11. factor – reactive aggression. Besides above-mentioned factors the author of this measure consider that it is possible to measure the general intensity of aggressiveness by summing raw results of indi-vidual factors listed above.

3. Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (Kosewski, 1967) Authorized translation was realised by M. Choynowsky, M. Kosiewski,

Z. Ostrichańska and D. Wójcik (Choynowski, 1972).


The subscales of this inventory are: assault, indirect hostility, irritability, negativism, resentment, suspicion, verbal hostility and sense of guilt. We employed two of these subscales for the purpose of the validity analysis: • Indirect hostility – understood as indirect aggression directed to a cer-

tain person, malicious rumours, jokes manifested as shouting and thumping the table. It comprises also disordered outbursts.

• Negativism – it is oppositional behaviour that is usually directed against authority or authorities. It may increase from passive resist-ance to active fight against law or common customs.

4. M. Król-Fijewska Assertiveness Map (1993) The Assertiveness Map comprises 42 questions describing an individual’s

behaviour in a given situation and contains following subscales: 1) defen-ding one’s rights in social situations, 2) defending one’s rights in private relations, 3) initiative and social contacts, 4) opinions – express and re-ceive criticism and praise, 5) request expression, 6) feeling expression, 7) opinion expression, 8) public appearance, 9) contacts with authority, 10) intrude on someone.We employed two of these subscales for the purpose of the validity ana-

lysis: subscale 7 opinion expression and subscale 9 – contacts with authority.

5. General Self-Efficacy Scale (R. Schwarzer, M. Jerusalem, Z. Juczyński) GSES – General Self-Efficacy Scale refers to A. Bandura’s conception

of expectations and to the notion of self-efficacy. This Scale measures the strength of general belief on the self-efficacy in coping with difficult situations and obstacles. The sense of self-efficacy permit to predict pe-ople intentions and actions, also in the field of health behaviour. The Scale is designed to be used in studies on healthy and ill people. The sum score constitute the general indicator of the self-efficacy feeling; this sum sco-re may vary from 10 to 40 points. The higher is the score, the greater is the self-efficacy feeling (Juczyński 2001).

6. Temperament Questionnaire PTS (Strelau, Zawadzki, 1998).• Mobility of Nervous Processes (RPN). It signifies the capacity of cen-

tral nervous system to switch from one state to another, respectively to rapidly changing stimuli (plasticity and flexibility in comportment, activity, sociability).


• Strenght of Excitation (SPP). It concerns the functional efficiency of central nervous system and it manifests itself in the capacity to re-act adequately to strong of prolonged stimuli. SPP corresponds with endurance and emotional resilience or low reactivity.

• Strenght of Inhibition (SPH). The strength of inhibition process refers to the capacity to maintain so-called state of conditional or acquired inhibition, that manifest itself in suppression, delaying, interrupt ac-tivities adequately to the current need. SPH resembles the self-control of behaviour.

• Equilibrium of Nervous Processes (RPN). We can infer information about the equilibrium of nervous processes only from the comparison between SPP and SPH. When this difference equals zero it means that the of nervous processes are in equilibrium; when this difference is negative it means the dominance of the inhibition process while when this difference is positive it means the dominance of the arousal pro-cess (Strelau, 2006).

The validity and reliability coefficients of the above mentioned methods can be found in the quoted literature.

In the Table 10 we present the analysis of the „multitrait-multimethod ma-trix”, the r-Pearson’s correlation coefficients between KAwSiB’s dimensions and other dimensions included in the above mentioned questionnaires.


Table 10. KAwSiB’s scales and measures of aggressiveness, self-efficacy, assertiveness and temperament

Questionnaire Variable „Go-ahe-ad”

“Tripping someone

up”

„Asserti-veness”

General score in KAwSiB

Tendency to revenge behaviour

0,25 0,47 0,12 0,38 p<0,001 p<0,001 p<0,001 p<0,001 Tendency to

self-destruction0,05 0,17 –0,02 0,09

p = 0,109 p<0,001 p = 0,454 p = 0,003 Aggression regulation

disorders0,11 0,24 –0,01 0,15

p<0,001 p<0,001 p = 0,842 p<0,001 Displaced aggression 0,11 0,24 0,00 0,16 p<0,001 p<0,001 p = 0,752 p<0,001 Unconscious aggressive

tendencies 0,13 0,26 0,04 0,20

Psychological Aggression p<0,001 p<0,001 p = 0,127 p<0,001Syndrom Inventory Indirect aggression 0,11 0,26 0,01 0,17IPSA II p<0,001 p<0,001 p = 0,638 p<0,001(N = 1072; 691 Women, 381Men)

Instrumental aggression

0,10 0,23 0,00 0,16

Age (M = 23,88; SD = 8,13) p<0,001 p<0,001 p = 0,742 p<0,001

Self-hostility 0,09 0,22 –0,00 0,14 p = ,002 p<0,001 p = 0,825 p<0,001 Physical aggression

directed outside0,09 0,22 0,01 0,15

p = 0,001 p<0,001 p = 0,629 p<0,001 Hostility directed

outside0,14 0,30 0,02 0,21

p<0,001 p<0,001 p = 0,407 p<0,001 Reactive aggression 0,14 0,28 0,04 0,21 p<0,001 p<0,001 p = 0,110 p<0,001 IPSA – General score 0,23 0,43 0,10 0,34

p<0,001 p<0,001 p = 0,001 p<0,001 Physical aggression 0,22 0,36 0,15 0,33

p<0,001 p<0,001 p<0,001 p<0,001 Verbal aggression 0,28 0,33 0,36 0,44 p<0,001 p<0,001 p<0,001 p<0,001


Buss and Perry Aggres-sion Questionnaire

Anger 0,16 0,21 0,12 0,22

(N = 1072; 691 Women, 381 Men)

p<0,001 p<0,001 p<0,001 p<0,001

Age (M = 23,88; SD = 8,13)Hostility 0,25 0,32 0,05 0,28 p<0,001 p<0,001 p = 0,085 p<0,001 Aggression – General

score0,28 0,39 0,19 0,38

p<0,001 p<0,001 p<0,001 p<0,001 Indirect aggression 0,20 0,37 0,0687 0,28

p<0,001 p<0,001 p = 0,053 p<0,001Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory

Negativism 0,22 0,29 0,18 0,30

(N = 776; 450 Women, 326 Men)

p<0,001 p<0,001 p<0,001 p<0,001

Age (M = 29,49; SD = 10,80)

Defending one’s rights 0,19 0,10 0,34 0,28

p<0,001 p = 0,003 p<0,001 p<0,001

General Self-Efficacy Scale

Self-efficacy 0,34 0,13 0,41 0,40

(N = 224; 149 Women, 75 Men)Age (M = 26,42; SD = 10,31)

p<0,001 p = 0,006 p<0,001 p<0,001

Opinion expression 0,18 –0,08 0,44 0,24

Assertiveness Map p<0,001 p = 0,012 p<0,001 p<0,001(N = 776; 450 Women, 326 Men)

Contacts with authority 0,22 0,07 0,40 0,30

Age (M = 29,49; SD = 10,80)

p<0,001 p = 0,046 p<0,001 p<0,001

Mobility of Nervous Processes

–0,13 –0,06 –0,20 –0,17Temperament Questionnaire PTS

p = 0,052 p = 0,397 p = 0,003 p = 0,010

(N = 224 Strenght of Excitation –0,10 –0,10 –0,30 –0,22 Age (M = 26,42 p = 0,157 p = 0,130 p<0,001 p = 0,001

Strenght of Inhibition 0,21 0,19 0,09 0,22

p = 0,001 p = 0,004 p = 0,198 p = 0,001


In the study participated 2072 individuals. The performed analyses show that the r-Pearson’s correlation coefficient between „Go-ahead” and all ag-gressiveness variables studied is statistically significant. The correlation coefficients are weak and their level vary from r = 0,11 (displaced aggression) to r = 0,28 (verbal aggression). The correlation between „Tripping someone up” and all aggressiveness variables studied are also statistically significant. The highest r-Pearson correlation coefficient for IPSA II was found between „Tripping someone up” and the Tendency to revenge behaviour (r = 0,47). A person scoring high in the scale „Tendency to revenge behaviour” reacts with aggression, can take revenge, is willing to prepare and to realise revenge and, accordingly to Z. Gas, the author of the IPSA II (1987), search the oppor-tunity to retaliate for experienced or figured failures. The analyses realised with Buss and Perry Aggression Questionnaire shows the highest correlation coefficient between „Tripping someone up” and physical aggression (r = 0,36) and verbal aggression (r = 0,33). The correlation between “Tripping someone up” and indirect aggression (Aggression Questionnaire) was r = 0,37. Then, only few of correlation coefficients between assertiveness and all types of ag-gressiveness examined with three questionnaires was statistically significant. The highest correlation level appeared between “Assertiveness” and verbal aggression (r = 0,36) (Buss and Perry Aggression Questionnaire) and between “Assertiveness” and defending one’s rights r = 0,34 (Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory). The next analysis that we realised was the verification of the re-lationship between two traits examined with General Self-Efficacy Scale and aggressiveness traits examined with the KAwSiB. The correlations between this scale and „Go-ahead” was r = 0,34, and “Assertiveness” was r = 0,41 and it was statistically significant. The problem in this analysis was first of all to verify if self-efficacy correlate positively with „Go-ahead”, the result revealed conform with our assumptions.

An other analysis was conducted for demonstrate the existing rela-tionship between “Assertiveness” which is one of the KAwSiB’a factors and the generally understood assertiveness examined with Assertiveness Map. In this case the r-Pearson coefficient was higher than r = 0,40 and it was sta-tistically significant. In this case the assumption on the co-occurence of the relationship between two traits was also satisfied; for the analysis we used only two of 10 scales from the Assertiveness Map, namely: Opinion expression and Contacts with authority.


We obtained interesting effects analysing the relationships with the re-sults of the Temperament Questionnaire PTS. Not all correlation coefficients between KAwSiB’s factors and temperament components were statistically significant and the relationships were weak or moderate. In the case of “As-sertiveness” and the Strenght of Excitation the correlation was r = –0,30 which means that more a person has the Strength of excitation, the lesser is his or her degree of assertiveness or the higher the assertiveness degree, the lesser the level of excitation. This is conform with other result observed between the Strength of inhibition and „Go-ahead” (r = 0,21). Indeed the correlation is weak, but in signifies that one person’s „Go-ahead” is linked to the higher in-hibition strength; it signifies among other things the greater ability to control emotions.

The construct validity estimation was realised by means of the correla-tion coefficients analysis. We expected the high store correlation between test measuring similar traits. In our case these correlations were moderate. The correlation with scores in questionnaires measuring other traits should be low (among other assertiveness measured with KAwSiB and hostility or physical aggression). Nevertheless the discriminant construct validity aspect was confirmed.

KAwSiB dimensions description

The Questionnaire of the Aggressiveness in Sport and in Business may be used to measure the aggressive behaviour perception and interpretation style. This questionnaire identifies three aggressive behaviour factors: „Go-ahead”, „Tripping someone up” and “Assertiveness”.

„Go-ahead” – means persistently pursue a goal regardless of emerging obstacles. „Go-ahead” means also truculence and aggressive entrepre-neurship. In other words „Go-ahead” means the expansion aimed at attain new material and immaterial resources for example prestige. This kind of aggressiveness characterizes individual that beaks obstacles, attacks, is inflexible, courageous and fearless. “Go-ahead” describes also a person who overcome common, usual standards.

“Tripping someone up” – individual characterized by this kind of aggressive-ness have not scruples, is interested only in his own business, and consider


it normal when sometimes hi/she must go over people dead body. This individual uses lies, intrigues and lays the blame on others if he consi-ders this necessary to reach his goal. He has not bad conscience when he resorts to bribery. In his opinion the happiness is worth “sacrifices”. He did not attach great importance to truthfulness / honesty. He creates / engages himself in situations of morbid rivalry, frequently feigning false friendship.

“Assertiveness”: individual characterized by this kind of aggressiveness acts and express his/her opinion in a courageous way in spite of impending potential negative consequences. Assertive individual won’t be pushed around, that is, he don’t allow others to impose him an opinion and he knows how to defend his own business just because of that he don’t let others to exploit or cheat him.

Procedure for using questionnaire

The Questionnaire may be used in individual and group testing. Each response is rated as follow:

Absolutely NON = 1; Rather NON = 2; It is difficult to say = 3; Rather YES = 4; Ab-solutely YES = 5.

Dimension (Go-ahead) comprises items: 1,4,7,10,13.Dimension (Tripping someone up) comprises items: 2,5,8,11,14.Dimension (Assertiveness) comprises items: 3,6,9,12,15.Minimum score for each factor is 5, – maximum is 25.

Conclusions

The Questionnaire of the Aggressiveness in Sport and in Business is a measure giving answers to questions about aggressive behaviour motives. On the one hand the motivation may be caused by overwhelming will to reach the established goal, on the other hand it may be instrumental when other peo-ple are treated as a tool to realise some goal. Rivals may be treated as obstacles and hence egoistic behaviour appear. This behaviour is directed at take away the obstacle or at eliminate it by means of different malicious acts. The third


KAwSiB’s factor is “Assertiveness” that „assist” „Go-ahead” by straightforward defence on one’s interests. Only the person who takes the floor and defends his interests may be heard out, as opposed to the one that is not able to oppose to others and say anything even when unfairly treated and abused by others.

The results of analysis carried out on two groups (622 + 2499 = 3121 per-sons) demonstrate that the reliability of the subscales is highly satisfactory. The female and male attitude scales reliability are similar, so it is possible to say that the Questionnaire of the Aggressiveness in Sport and in Business is a reliable measure of aggressiveness as for women as for men. The KAwSiB’s factor structure is the same in the population of women and men having high and low sense of aggressiveness. In other words, the results obtained in KAw-SiB are valid, independently of sex and intensity of the declared level of risk…

In studies concerning the examination of criterion validity participated 2072 persons. We used for this purpose six tools measuring different ty-pes of aggressiveness, assertiveness and measuring the level of efficacy and temperament. The performed analysis show that the r-Pearson correlation coefficient between “Go-ahead” and all other aggressiveness types examined by means of three questionnaires are statistically significant. These correla-tions are weak and their level oscillate from r = 0,11 (displaced aggression), to r = 0,28 (verbal aggression).

The correlation that we obtained between the self-efficacy level and „Go-ahead” was r = 0,34; while the correlation between self-efficacy and “As-sertiveness” was r = 0,41. The discriminant theoretical validity aspect was confirmed.

An incontestable advantage of this questionnaire is the fact that it is composed only of fifteen items. This questionnaire may be used by all sport discipline coaches, who wants to know the motifs of engaging in aggressive-ness. This questionnaire may be also utilized by other people, for example in business in order to complement the knowledge about one person or group behaviour during decision making process. This questionnaire may be com-pleted by people from outside sport or business, performing occupations as for example policemen, soldiers, emergency personnel, fire-fighters etc. It is possible to verify their individual aggressiveness level in different situations conducive to the aggression appearance.


Literature quoted

Anderson, C.A., Bushman, B.J. (2002). Human aggression, Annual Review of Psychol-ogy, 53, 27–51.

Aranowska, E. (2005). Pomiar ilościowy w psychologii. Od klasycznej teorii testów do podstaw teorii testów dla pojęć rozmytych [Quantitative measurement in psychol-ogy. From classic test theory to the rudiments of for fuzzy notions test theory]. Warszawa: Scientific Publishing House SCHOLAR.

Archer, J. (1988). The behavioral Biology of Aggression. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Arrdinell, W.A., Sanderman, R., Van der Molen, H., Van der Ende, J. and Mersch, P.P. (1988). The structure of assertiveness: A confirmatory approach. Behavior Research and Therapy, 26, 337–339.

Aronson, E. (1999). Człowiek istota społeczna [The social animal]. Warszawa [War-saw]: Scientific Publishing House PWN.

Bandura, A. and Walters, R.H. (1968). Agresja w okresie dorastania. Wpływ praktyk wychowawczych i stosunków rodzinnych [Adolescent aggression; a study of the influence of child-training practices and family interrelationships]. Warszawa [Warsaw]: Scientific Publishing House PWN.

Brzeziński, J. (ed.) (2005). Metodologia badań psychologicznych. Wybór tekstów [Methodology of psychological research. Articles selection]. Warszawa [Warsaw]: Scientific Publishing House PWN.

Buss, A.H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley.

Buss, A.H., Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459.

Castanier, C., Le Scanff, Ch. (2010). Woodman, Tim Beyond sensation seeking: Affect regulation as a framework for predicting risk-taking behaviors in high-risk sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32(5), 731–738.

Choynowski, M. (1972). Skrócony podręcznik do testu Nastroje i Humory [Abridged manual for the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory]. Warszawa [Warsaw]: Ministry of Education Publishing House.

Deffenbacher, J.L. (2008). Anger, Aggression, and Risk Behavior on the road. In: A Preliminary Study of Urban and Rural Differences. Journal of Applied Social Psy-chology, 38, 22–36.

Donahue, E.G., Rip, B. and Vallerand, R.J. (2009). When winning is everything: On pas-sion, identity, and aggression in sport. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 10, 526–534.

Frączek, A. (1979). Studia nad psychologicznymi mechanizmami czynności agresywnych.


[Studies on psychological mechanisms of aggressive acts]. Wrocław: Ossolińscy’s National Publishing House.

Frączek, A. (ed.) (1980). Z zagadnień psychologii agresji [Aggression psychology prob-lems]. Warszawa [Warsaw]: WSPS Publishing House.

Gaś, Z. (1987). Zrewidowana wersja inwentarza psychologicznego syndromu agresji – IPSA II [Psychological Aggression Syndrome Inventory IPSA II version revised]. Przegląd Psychologiczny [Psychological Review], 4, 1003–1016.

Gaul, M., Machowski A. (2004). Wprowadzenie do analizy ścieżek [Introduction to path analysis]. In: J. Brzeziński (ed.): Metodologia badań psychologicznych. Wybór tekstów [Methodology of psychological research. Articles selection]. Warszawa [Warsaw]: Scientific Pubishing House PWN.

Gracz, J., Sankowski, T. (2007). Psychologia aktywności sportowej [Sport activity psy-chology]. Poznań: Eugeniusz Cisecki’s Academy of Physical Education Publishing House in Poznań.

Grunt-Meier, K., Grunt-Meier, J. (2011). Agresja drogowa: jej uwarunkowania i metody pomiaru [Aggression on the Road: its antededents and measurement methods]. Psychologia społeczna [Social Psychology], 2, 159–168.

Hobfoll, S., (2006). Stres, kultura I społeczność. Psychologia i filozofia stresu [Stress, Culture and Community. Psychology and philosophy of stress]. Gdańsk: Gdańsk Psychological Publishing House.

Hornowska, E. (2005). Testy psychologiczne. Teoria i praktyka [Psychological tests. Theory and practice]. Warszawa [Warsaw]: Scientific Publishing House SCHOLAR.

Husman, B.F., Silva, J.M. (1984). Aggression in sport: definitional and theoretical con-siderations, In: J.M. Silva, R.S. Weinberg (eds.) Psychological foundations of sports. Champagin: Human Knictics.

Jarvis, M. (2003). Psychologia sportu. [Sport psychology] Gdańsk: Gdańsk Psychologi-cal Publishing House.

Juczyński Z. (2001). Narzędzia pomiaru w promocji i psychologii zdrowia. [Meas-urement tools in health psychology] Warszawa [Warsaw]: Psychological Tests Laboratory.

Lewellyn, D.J., Sanchez X. (2008). Individual differences and risk taking in rock climb-ing. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 413–426.

Kalina, R.M., Kałużny, R.J. (2002). Działanie człowieka w sytuacjach zagrożeń [Human activity in danger situations]. Płock: Scientific Publishing House Novum Ldt.

Karasiewicz, K., Makarowski, R. (2012). Modelowanie strukturalne z programem AMOS – wybrane modele równań strukturalnych na przykładach z psychologii [Structural modeling with AMOS – chosen structural equation models based on psychology


examples]. Zimowe Warsztaty Analityczne [Winter Analytic Workshop] SWPS SPSS Polska. Warszawa [Warsaw]: Predictive Solution SPSS (skrypt kursowy do użytku wewnętrznego) [summary of course lectures to be taken only internally].

Konarski, R. (2009). Modele równań strukturalnych. Teoria i praktyka [Structural equ-ations models. Theory and practive]. Warszawa [Warsaw]: National Scientific Publishing House PWN.

Kosewski, M. (1967). Wprowadzenie do skali Agresji Bussa-Drukee (Nastroje i humory). [Introduction to Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory]. Warszawa [Warsaw]: Center for Crime Studies.

Krahé, B. (2006). Agresja. [Aggression]. Gdańsk: Gdańsk Psychology Publishing House.

Król-Fijewska, M. (1993). Stanowczo, łagodnie, bez lęku [Firmly, gently, without fear]. Warszawa [Warsaw]: INTRA Publishing House.

Książek, M. (2010). Amos: od regresji i analizy czynnikowe do modelowania struktu-ralnego ze zmiennymi ukrytymi [Amos: from reggression and factor analysis to structural modeling whith latent variables]. Zimowe Warsztaty analityczne 8 lu-tego 2010 [Winter Analytic Workshop 8 february 2010]. Warszawa [Warsaw]: SPSS Ldt. [summary of course lectures to be taken only internally].

Kubacka-Jasiecka, D. (2006). Agresja i autoagresja z perspektywy obronno-adaptacyj-nych dążeń Ja [Aggression and self aggression from defensive-adaptive perspective of Ego strivings]. Kraków [Cracow]: Jagiellonian University Publishing House.

Loeber, R., Hay, D. (1997). Key issues in the development of aggression and violence from childhood to early adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 371–410.

Maciaszczyk, P. (2011). Agresywność a asertywność młodocianych sprawców prze-stępstw [Juvenile offenders’ aggressiveness and assertiveness]. Tarnobrzeg: Publishing House of Professor S. Tarnowski State Higher Professional School.

Majchrzyk, Z. and Terelak, J.F. (ed.) (2011). Agresja wirtualna vs realna: Poglądy i ba-dania [Virtual versus real aggression: Views and research]. Białystok: Publishing House of Stanisław Staszic Higher School of Public Administration.

Makarowski, R., Peplińska A. and Nowopolski, M. (2010). Psychological Aspects of Risk and Aggression among Motorcyclists – “Mad Max” Syndrome. Polish Psy-chological Bulletin, 41, 74–83.

Maxwell, J.P., Visek, A.J. i Moores, E. (2009). Anger and perceived legitimacy of ag-gression in male Hong Kong Chinese athletes: Effects of type of sport and level of competition. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 289–296.

Niehoff, D. (2001). Biologia przemocy [Violence biology]. Poznań: Media Rodzina.

Oleś, M. (1988). Asertywność u dzieci w okresie wczesnej adolescencji [Assertiveness in children during early adolescence]. Lublin: TN KUL.


Ó Ciardha, C., Gannon, T.A. (2012). The implicit theories of firesetters: A preliminary conceptualization. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 122–128.

Rich, A.R., Schroeder, H.E. (1976). Research Issues in Assertiveness Training. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 83, 1081–1096.

Roberton, T., Daffern, M. i Bucks, R.S., (2012). Emotion regulation and aggression, Ag-gression and Violent Behavior, 17, 72–82.

Rowe, C.J. (1998). Aggression and violence in sports. Psychiatric Annals. 28, 265–269.

Russell, G.W. (2008). Aggression in the sports world: a social psychological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rychta, T. (2004). Agresja w sporcie. Definicje i rodzaje agresji [Aggression in sport. Definitions and aggression types]. In: A. Rejzner (ed.): Agresja w szkole, spojrzenie wieloaspektowe [Aggression in school, a multi-faceted look]. Warszawa [Warsaw]: High School of Pedagogy. Society for the Popularization of Culture and Science.

Segan, A. (2003). Model pomiarowy satysfakcji i lojalności [Satisfaction and loyalty measurement model]. Dostępne [Accessed: 30.12.2010: at: http://www.statsoft.pl/czytelnia/marketing/pomiarowy.pdf.

Strelau, J. (2006). Temperament jako regulator zachowania. Z perspektywy półwiecza badań [Temperament as a behaviour regulator. From half-a-century research per-spective]. Gdańsk: Gdańsk Publishing House.

Strelau, J., Zawadzki, B. (1998). Kwestionariusz temperamentu PTS. Podręcznik. [Tem-perament Questionnaire PTS. Manual]. Warszawa [Warsaw]: Psychological Test Laboratory.

Szcześniak, M., (2009). Weryfikacja modelu wdzięczności Williama McDougalla z wy-korzystaniem konfirmacyjnej analizy czynnikowej [William McDougal gratitude model verification using confirmatory factor analysis]. Przegląd Psychologiczny [Psychological Review], 52, 219–234.

Szmajke, A. (1993). To niedopuszczalne, ale ja to zrobię: Uprawianie sportu a akcep-tacja agresji i zachowań nieetycznych u chłopców [It is inadmissible but I will do it. Doing sport and acceptance of aggression and unethical behaviours in boys]. Przegląd Psychologiczny [Psychological Review], 4, 503–513.

Szmajke, A., Pawłowska, A. and Wiliński, W. (2005). Rywalizacja czyni mężczyzną? Dostosowawcze zmiany tożsamości (identyfikacji płciowej) u kobiet i mężczyzn oczekujących rywalizacji sportowej [Competition make man? Adjustment iden-tity changes (gender identity) in women and men waiting sport rivalry]. [In]: E. Wlazło (ed.). Sport młodzieżowy w badaniach psychologicznych [Youth sport in psychological research]. Wrocław: AWF Publishing House.

Szmajke, A. (2005). Sport a agresja: kultura honoru czy kultura „zwykłej” agresji [Sport and aggression: culture of honour or culture of „ordinary” aggression]. In:


J. Supiński (ed.). Agresja w kulturze fizycznej [Aggression in physical culture]. Stu-dia i Monografie AWF we Wrocławiu [Wrocław AWF’s Research and Monograph], 79, 25–37.

Terelak, J.F., Goleń E. (2011). Potrzeba doznań a agresja u bokserów i piekarzy [The need for experience and aggression in boxers and bakers]. In: Z. Majchrzak, J.F. Terelak (eds.): Agresja wirtualna i realna: Poglądy i badania [Virtual and real aggression. Views and research]. Białystok: Publishing House of Stanisław Staszic Higher School of Public Administration.

Thirer, J. (1993). Aggression. In: R.N. Singer, M. Murphey, L.K. Tennant (eds.) Handbo-ok of research on sport psychology, pp. 421–435. New York: Macmillan.

Tucholska, S. (1998). Pomiar agresji: kwestionariusz agresji A. Bussa i M. Perry’go [Aggression measurement: Buss and Perry Aggression Questionnaire]. Stu-dia z psychologii w KUL [Psychology Studies at Catholic University of Lublin], 9, 369–377.

Ubertowski, A. (2011). Psychologia biznesu [Business psychology]. Katowice: Fa-art. Publishing House.

Wałęcka-Matyja, K. (2009). Zachowania agresywne i ich predykatory osobowościowe u młodzieży i rodzin o zróżnicowanej strukturze [Aggressive behaviour and its personality predictors in young people and in families with diverse structures]. Polskie Forum Psychologiczne [Polish Psychological Forum], 14, 195–207.

Wojciszke, B. (2011). Psychologia społeczna [Social psychology]. Warszawa [Warsaw]: Scientific Publishing House Scholar.

Wolińska, J.M. (2010). Agresywność młodzieży. Problem indywidualny i społeczny [Young people aggressiveness. Individual and social problem]. Lublin: UMCS Pub-lishing House.

Wolpe, J. (1969). The Practice of behaviour therapy. New York: Pergamon Press.

Wolska, A. (1997). Mechanizmy agresji u sprawców zabójstw [Aggression mechanizm in murder perpetrators]. Czasopismo Psychologiczne [Psychological Magazine]: 3, 195–200.

Zakrzewska, M. (2004). Konfirmacyjna analiza czynnikowa w ujęciu pakietu staty-stycznego LISREL 8.51 (2001) Karla G. Jöreskoga i Daga Sörboma [Confirmatory factor analysis with statistical package LISREL 8.51 (2001) by Karl G Jöreskog and Dag Sörbom]. In: J. Brzeziński (ed.): Metodologia badań psychologicznych. Wybór tekstów [Methodology of psychological research. Articles selection]. Warszawa [Warsaw]: Scientific Pubishing House PWN.


Questionnaire of the Aggressiveness in Sport and in Business (KAwSiB)R. Makarowski

Please take an attitude towards each item. There are neither good nor bad answers, matters only sincere responses. Please cross the response you choose.

Abso

lute

ly N

ON

Rat

her N

ON

It is

diff

icul

t to

say

Rath

er Y

ES A

bZde

cydo

wan

ie

Abso

lute

ly Y

ES

1. In order to get any goal it is necessary to press ahead without looking outside.

a b c d e

2. Matters only the victory, non important the way to reach it. a b c d e

3. When I consider my trainer or my boss is wrong, I say it to him.

a b c d e

4. Usually I achieve success because I inflexibly press ahead. a b c d e

5. For reach gains, I would not have scruples about backbite my rival.

a b c d e

6. I am not afraid of reprimand by boss if I know he is wrong.

a b c d e

7. I use every opportunity to win. a b c d e

8. To get promoted I would not have scruples about destroy my rival.

a b c d e

9. I discuss with referees and my coach (or with my manager at work) when I am convinced they are wrong.

a b c d e

10. There is not such an argument, which could dissuade me from the goal that I have in my sights.

a b c d e

11. In my opinion there are no holds barred when one strives for the victory.

a b c d e

12. I am not afraid to stand up for defend my own right, even in the face of persons standing higher than me.

a b c d e

13. „To press ahead” is the purpose in my life. a b c d e

14. I feels satisfaction if I succeed in cause damage to my rival.

a b c d e

15. For a good cause I am ready to give a critical judgement about my boss.

a b c d e

Sex [F] [M] Age ............................

questionnaire of aggressiveness in sport and business

Documents