Aggressive Behaviour in Native, First- and Second-Generation Immigrant Youth: Testing Inequality Constrained Hypotheses



In this chapter, we argue that evaluating expectations directly produces more useful results than does sequentially testing traditional null hypotheses against catch-all rivals. To do this, a parametric bootstrap procedure for the evaluation of inequality constraints as described in Van de Schoot et al. (2010; see also Van de Schoot and Strohmeier 2011) can be used. How to test inequality constrained hypotheses is demonstrated using an example in which the underlying functions of aggressive behaviour in native and immigrant youth were investigated. The goal of this chapter is twofold (1) to introduce the methodology and (2) to re-analyse quantitative data of a real-life example to demonstrate the methodology and to validate the conclusions of the original paper. First, we will introduce our example, and after that, we elaborate on inequality constrained hypothesis in structural equation modelling.


  1. Bandura A (1983) Psychological mechanisms of aggression. In: Green RG, Donnerstein EI (eds) Aggression: theoretical and empirical views, vol 1. Academic, New York, NY, pp 1–40Google Scholar
  2. Berkowitz L (1989) Frustration-aggression hypothesis: examination and reformulation. Psychol Bull 106:59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berry JW (1997) Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Appl Psychol Int Rev 46(1):5–68Google Scholar
  4. Berry JW, Phinney JS, Sam DL, Vedder P (2006) Immigrant youth: acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Appl Psychol Int Rev 55(3):303–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Card NA, Little TD (2006) Proactive and reactive aggression in childhood and adolescence: a meta-analysis of differential relations with psychosocial adjustment. Int J Behav Dev 30(5):466–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen J (1990) Things I have learned (so far). Am Psychol 45:1304–1312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen J (1994) The earth is round (p <.05). Am Psychol 49:997–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dekovic M, Wissink I, Meijer AM (2004) The role of family and peer relations in adolescent antisocial behaviour: comparison of four ethnic groups. J Adolesc 27:497–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Fandrem H, Strohmeier D, Roland E (2009) Bullying and victimization among Norwegian and immigrant adolescents in Norway: the role of proactive and reactive aggressiveness. J Early Adolesc 29(6):898–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fite PJ, Stauffacher K, Ostrov JM, Colder CR (2008) Replication and extension of Little et al. ’s (2003) forms and functions of aggression measure. Int J Behav Dev 32(3):238–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Galindo-Garre F, Vermunt J (2004) The order-restricted association model: two estimation algorithms and issues in testing. Psychometrika 69:641–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galindo-Garre F, Vermunt J (2005) Testing log-linear models with inequality constraints: a comparison of asymptotic, bootstrap, and posterior predictive p-values. Stat Neerl 59:82–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gradinger P, Strohmeier D, Stefanek E, Spiel C (2008) Socio-cultural adaptation in immigrant adolescents living in Austria: a study on bullying others and its underlying functions. Paper presented at the symposium “Immigrant youth: processes of adaptation and mal-adaptation in four receiving countries” (Organizers: Titzmann and Strohmeier) at the 12th Biennial meeting of the SRA (Society for Research on Adolescence) in Chicago, IL, 5–9 Mar 2008Google Scholar
  15. Hoijtink H, Huntjes R, Reijntjes A, Kuiper R, Boelen P (2008a) An evaluation of Bayesian inequality constrained analysis of variance. In: Hoijtink H, Klugkist I, Boelen PA (eds) Bayesian evaluation of informative hypothesis. Springer, New York NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoijtink H, Klugkist I, Boelen PA (2008b) Bayesian evaluation of informative hypotheses. Springer, New York, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kammers M, Mulder J, De Vignemont F, Dijkerman H (2010) The weight of representing the body: addressing the potentially indefinite number of body representations in healthy individuals. Exp Brain Res 204:333–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee MD, Pope KJ (2006) Model selection for the rate problem: a comparison of significance testing, Bayesian, and minimum description length statistical inference. J Math Psychol 50:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee MD, Wagenmakers E-J (2005) Bayesian statistical inference in psychology: comment on Trafimow (2003). Psychol Rev 112:662–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Little TD, Jones SM, Henrich CC, Hawley PH (2003) Disentangling the “whys” from the “whats” of aggressive behavior. Int J Behav Dev 27:122–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meeus W, Van de Schoot R, Keijsers L, Schwartz SJ, Branje S (2010) On the progression and stability of adolescent identity formation. A five-wave longitudinal study in early-to-middle and middle-to-late adolescence. Child Dev 81(5):1565–1581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mulder J, Klugkist I, Van de Schoot R, Meeus W, Selfhout M, Hoijtink H (2009) Bayesian model selection of informative hypotheses for repeated measurements. J Math Psychol 53:530–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mulder J, Hoijtink H, Klugkist I (2010) Equality and inequality constrained multivariate linear models: objective model selection using constrained posterior priors. J Stat Plan Inference 4:887–906Google Scholar
  24. Muthén LK, Muthén BO (2007) Mplus: statistical analysis with latent variables: user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, CAGoogle Scholar
  25. Ritov Y, Gilula Z (1993) Analysis of contingency tables by correspondence models subject to order constraints. J Am Stat Assoc 88:1380–1387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schoenberg S (1997) Constrained maximum likelihood. Comput Econ 10:251–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Silvapulle MJ, Sen PK (2004) Constrained statistical inference: order, inequality, and shape constraints. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Spiel C, Strohmeier D, Fandrem H, Stefanek E (2009) Acceptance by friends as underlying function of aggressive behaviour in immigrant adolescents. Paper presented at the 2009 Biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD), Denver, USAGoogle Scholar
  29. Stoel RD, Galindo-Garre F, Dolan C, Van den Wittenboer G (2006) On the likelihood ratio test in structural equation modeling when parameters are subject to boundary constraints. Psychol Methods 4:439–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Strohmeier D, Fandrem H, Stefanek E, Spiel C (2011) Acceptance by friends as underlying function of aggressive behaviour in immigrant adolescents. Scand J Psychol 53:80–88, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00910.x
  31. Tsonaka R, Moustaki I (2007) Parameter constraints in generalized linear latent variable models. Comput Stat Data Anal 51:4164–4177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van de Schoot R (2010) Informative hypotheses: how to move beyond classical null hypothesis testing. Doctoral dissertationGoogle Scholar
  33. Van de Schoot R, Strohmeier D (2011) Testing informative hypotheses in SEM increases power: an illustration contrasting classical hypothesis testing with a parametric bootstrap approach. Int J Behav Dev 35:180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van de Schoot R, Wong T (2011) Do antisocial young adults have a high or a low level of self-concept? Self Identity [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2010.517713
  35. Van de Schoot R, Hoijtink H, Doosje S (2009) Rechtstreeks verwachtingen evalueren of de nul hypothese toetsen? nul hypothese toetsing versus Bayesiaanse model selectie. [Directly evaluating expectations or testing the null hypothesis: Null hypothesis testing versus Bayesian model selection.]. De Psycholoog 4:196–203Google Scholar
  36. Van de Schoot R, Hoijtink H, Deković M (2010) Testing inequality constrained hypotheses in SEM models. Struct Equ Model 17:443–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van de Schoot R, Hoijtink H, Romeijn J-W (2011a). Moving beyond traditional null hypothesis testing: evaluating expectations directly. Front Psychol 2:24, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00024
  38. Van de Schoot R, Hoijtink H, Mulder J, Van Aken MAG, Orobio de Castro B, Meeus W, Romeijn J-W (2011b) Evaluating expectations about negative emotional states of aggressive boys using Bayesian model selection. Dev Psychol 47(1):203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Well S, Kolk AM, Klugkist I (2009) The relationship between sex, gender role identification, and the gender relevance of a stressor on physiological and subjective stress responses: sex and gender (mis)match effects. Int J Psychophysiol 32:427–449Google Scholar
  40. Veenstra R, Lindenberg S, Zijlstra BJH, De Winter AF, Verhulst FC, Ormel J (2007) The dyadic nature of bullying and victimization: testing a dual-perspective theory. Child Dev 78(6):1843–1854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vitaro F, Brendgen M, Barker ED (2006) Subtypes of aggressive behaviors: a developmental perspective. Int J Behav Dev 30(1):12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wagenmakers E-J, Lodewyckx T, Kuriyal H, Grasman R (2010) Bayesian hypothesis testing for psychologists: a tutorial on the Savage–Dickey method. Cogn Psychol 60:158–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wainer H (1999) One cheer for null hypothesis significance testing. Psychol Methods 4:212–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Methodology and StatisticsUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Optentia Research Program, Faculty of HumanitiesNorth-West UniversityVanderbijlparkSouth Africa
  3. 3.School of Health/Social SciencesUniversity of Applied Sciences Upper AustriaLinzAustria

Personalised recommendations