39

Chapter 3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter presents the statistically treated data in tabular form and its corresponding
analysis and interpretation.

1. Profile of the respondents when grouped according to:

1.1Age
Table 1
Frequency and percentage distribution of respondents when grouped according to age

Age Frequency Percentage

11-12 210 24.62
13-14 406 47.60
15-16 230 26.96
17 7 .82
Total 853 100

It is shown in the table that among the eight hundred fifty three (853)

respondents, the majority came from the age bracket of 13-14 with 406 or 47.60%,

followed by the age bracket under 15-16 with 230 or 26.96%, then under 11-12 with 210

or 24.62% and the respondents with very least frequency of 7 or .82% came from the age

bracket of 17.
 40

1.2 Gender

Table 2
Frequency and percentage distribution of respondents when grouped according to
gender

Gender Frequency Percentage

Male 406 47.60
Female 447 52.40
Total 853 100

The table above shows that majority of the respondents are female with a total

number of 447 or 52.40% while only 406 or 47.60% are male.

1.3 Family Structure

Table 3
Frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents when grouped according to
family structure

Family Structure Frequency Percentage

Both Parents 697 81.71
Solo Parent 156 18.29
Total 853 100

As shown on the table, among the eight hundred fifty three (853) respondents

most of our respondents have a family structure of both parents with a total number of

697 or 81.71% while the respondents with solo parent family structure have a total

number of 156 or 18.29%.

 41

2. Aggression level of the respondents when grouped according to profile variables

2.1 Age

Table 4

Frequency and Distribution of types of aggression (Physical Aggression) of the

respondents when grouped according to age

Physical Aggression

Age High Moderate Low Total

f % f % f % f %
11-12 6 0.70 142 16.65 62 7.27 210 24.62
13-14 28 3.28 272 31.89 106 12.43 406 47.60
15-16 25 2.93 163 19.11 42 4.92 230 26.96
17 0 0 5 0.59 2 0.23 7 .82
Total 59 6.92 582 68.25 212 24.85 853 100

The table shows that majority of the respondents in all the age brackets belong to

moderate level of aggression (physical aggression) with 272 or 31.89%, 142 or 16.65%,

163 or 19.11%, 5 or 0.59 respectively. It is also shown that respondents under the age

bracket of 13-14 belong to high level in physical aggression among the others with a total

number of 28 or 3.28%. However, respondents under 17 are low in physical aggression

with a total number of 2 or 0.23%. Regardless of age, most of the respondents are

moderate in physical aggression which means that they are not into physical

aggressiveness and somehow able to control their behavior towards others.

According to the study of Pena, Andreu, Granac (2001) they stated that

individuals with physical aggression tend to get angry and be ironic.

 42

Table 5

Frequency and Distribution of types of aggression (Verbal Aggression) of the

respondents when grouped according to age

Verbal Aggression

Age High Moderate Low Total

f % f % f % f %
11-12 53 16.21 109 12.78 48 5.63 210 24.62
13-14 137 16.06 208 24.38 61 7.15 406 47.60
15-16 73 8.56 117 13.72 40 4.69 230 26.96
17 4 0.47 3 .35 0 0 7 .82
Total 267 31.30 437 51.23 140 17.47 853 100

The table shows that majority of the respondents in all the age brackets belong to

moderate level of aggression (verbal aggression) with 208 or 24.38%, 109 or 12.78%,

117 or 13.72%, 3 or 0.35% respectively. It is also shown that respondents under the age

bracket of 13-14 belong to high level in verbal aggression among the others with a total

number of 28 or 3.28%. It shows that, most of the respondents are moderate in verbal

aggression which means that they can control their verbal aggressiveness sufficiently

well and take in consideration of others before expressing their thoughts, in order not to

hurt other people’s feelings.

 43

Table 6

Frequency and Distribution of types of aggression (Anger) of the respondents when

grouped according to age

Anger

Age High Moderate Low Total

f % f % f % f %
11-12 19 2.23 114 13.36 77 9.03 210 24.62
13-14 48 5.63 278 32.60 80 9.38 406 47.60
15-16 30 3.52 157 18.41 43 5.04 230 26.96
17 1 0.12 5 0.59 1 0.12 7 .82
Total 98 11.49 554 64.95 201 23.56 853 100

It is shown in the table that with all the age brackets, majority of the respondents

have moderate level of aggression (anger) with 114 or 13.36%, 278 or 32.60%, 157 or

18.41%, and 5 or 0.59% respectively. It is also shown that respondents fall in high level

of aggression (anger) under the age bracket of 13-14 amid other age levels with 48 or

5.63%. Thus, despite of the age, most of the respondents have moderate level of

aggression (anger) which means that they convey their anger passively, and not to enrage

themselves with any trouble to evade resentment towards others.

 44

Table 7

Frequency and Distribution of types of aggression (Hostility) of the respondents when

grouped according to age

Hostility

Age High Moderate Low Total

f % f % f % f %
11-12 25 2.93 134 15.71 51 5.98 210 24.62
13-14 94 11.02 239 28.02 73 8.56 406 47.60
15-16 36 4.22 152 17.82 42 4.92 230 26.96
17 2 0.23 3 0.35 2 0.23 7 .82
Total 157 18.41 528 61.90 168 19.70 853 100

It is shown in the table that in all the age levels, most of the respondents have

moderate level of aggression (hostility) with 134 or 15.71%, 239 or 28.02%, 152 or

17.82% and 3 or .35% respectively. It is also shown that respondents fall in high level of

aggression (hostility) under the age bracket of 13-14 amid other age levels with 94 or

11.02%. Therefore, it means that when grouped according to age most of the respondents

have moderate hostility level of aggression which depicts that they are still proper in

making rightful dispositions in order to disrepute negative emotions and have appropriate

approaches without inflicting harm just to impose their ideas.

 45

2.2 Gender

Table 8

Frequency and Distribution of types of aggression (Physical Aggression) of the

respondents when grouped according to gender

Physical Aggression

Gender High Moderate Low Total

f % f % f % f %
Male 33 3.87 282 33.06 91 10.67 406 47.60
Female 26 3.05 300 35.17 121 14.19 447 52.40
Total 59 6.92 582 68.23 212 24.85 853 100

It is shown in the table that when the respondents are grouped according to gender most

of the respondents have moderate level of aggression (physical aggression) with 282 or

33.06, 300 or 35.17 respectively. It can also be seen that 33 or 3.87% fall on high level

of aggression (physical aggression) which means that males are more likely to behave in

an aggressive manners. Females have low physical aggression level with a total number

of 121 or 14.19%. Hence, regardless of gender, most of the respondents belong to the

moderate level of physical aggression.

The data further reveals that it was apparent that the form of aggression can differ

between boys and girls. Males are far more likely to engage in physical aggression than

females. However, recent research has broadened the definition of aggression to include

verbal threats and intimidation that is intended to disrupt social relationships this is based

on the study “Is the aggression of adolescent girls different from the aggression of

adolescent boys”. (Weinraub & Wolf, 1983)

 46

Table 9

Frequency and Distribution of types of aggression (Verbal Aggression) of the

respondents when grouped according to gender

Verbal Aggression

Gender High Moderate Low Total

f % f % f % f %
Male 115 13.58 212 24.85 78 9.14 406 47.60
Female 116 13.60 225 26.38 71 8.32 447 52.40
Total 267 31.30 437 51.23 149 17.47 853 100

It is shown in the table that when the respondents are grouped according to gender most

of the respondents have moderate verbal aggression level with 212 or 24.85%, 225 or

26.38% respectively. It can also be seen that 116 or 13.60% fall on high level of

aggression (verbal aggression) which means that females are usually verbally abusive

towards other people. Hence, regardless of gender, most of the respondents belong to the

moderate level of physical aggression. It means that they in consideration the feelings of

others before uttering words that may hurt them emotionally.

According to the previous studies when threats and intimidation are considered,

girls are found to be more aggressive than previously thought. Moreover, the studies

suggests the possibility that as some girls age, the form of aggression shifts from verbal

threats and gossip intended to harm relationships to physical aggression.

 47

Table 10

Frequency and Distribution of types of aggression (Anger) of the respondents when

grouped according to gender

Anger

Gender High Moderate Low Total

f % f % f % f %
Male 38 4.45 251 29.43 117 13.72 406 47.60
Female 60 7.03 303 35.52 84 9.85 447 52.40
Total 98 11.49 554 64.95 201 23.56 853 100

It can be seen on the table that most of the respondents, regardless of gender, have

moderate level of aggression (anger) with 303 or 35.52%. It could be shown in the table

that Females fall on high level of aggression (anger) with 60 or 11.49%. Males are low in

anger with a total number of 117 or 13.72%. It means that females often argue, not to

arrive at truth, but merely to defeat the reasoning of his opponent.

Still, studies show that women are at least as prone to feeling anger as men and

that they fight plenty. Instead of expressing their angry emotions with their fists, women

tend to use what in 1995 psychologist Nicki Crick, then at the University of Illinois,

termed “relational aggression,” a less overt form characterized by social manipulation,

especially of same-sex peers. Popularized by such books as Odd Girl Out: The Hidden

Culture of Aggression in Girls, by Rachel Simmons (Harcourt, 2002), relational

aggression includes spreading rumors, gossiping, glaring, eye rolling, giving others the
 48

“silent treatment,” sending nasty notes or text messages behind rivals’ backs, excluding

others from social gatherings, poking fun at the appearance of competitors, and assorted

other stealth attacks. The so-called gentler sex may opt for such tactics because they are

socialized to not show hostility openly and also because their relative lack of physical

strength makes violence seem a less promising strategy.

Table 11
Frequency and Distribution of types of aggression (Hostility) of the respondents when
grouped according to gender

Hostility

Gender High Moderate Low Total

f % f % f % f %
Male 64 7.50 249 29.19 93 10.90 406 47.60

Female 93 10.90 279 32.71 75 8.80 447 52.40

Total 157 18.41 528 61.90 168 19.70 853 100

It can be seen in the table that most of the respondents regardless of gender, have

moderate level of aggression (hostility) with a percentages of 29.29% and 32.71%. It also

indicates that 93 or 10.90% fall on the high level of aggression (hostility).

Males belong to low level of aggression (hostility) with 93 or 10.90%. Hence most of the

respondents fall under the moderate level of aggression (hostility) which means that the

respondents moral judgments is still appropriate to the norm.

 49

2.3 Family Structure

Table 12

Frequency and Distribution of types of aggression (Physical Aggression) of the

respondents when grouped according to family structure

Physical Aggression

Family Structure High Moderate Low Total

f % f % f % f %
Both Parents 49 5.74 471 55.22 177 20.75 697 81.71
Solo Parent 10 1.17 111 13.01 35 4.10 156 18.29
Total 59 6.92 582 68.23 212 24.85 853 100

The table shows that most of the respondents have a both parents family
structure with total number of 697 or 81.71%. In terms of physical aggression
respondents having a both parents family structure fall under the high physical aggression
level with 49 or 5.74%. While respondents having a solo parent family structure have a
low physical aggression level with 35 or 24.85%. Hence, most of the respondents fall
under moderate physical aggression with 471 or 55.22%.
 50

Table 13
Frequency and Distribution of types of aggression (Verbal Aggression) of the
respondents when grouped according to age

Verbal Aggression

Family Structure High Moderate Low Total

f % f % f % f %
Both Parents 207 24.27 365 42.80 125 14.65 697 81.71
Solo Parent 60 7.03 72 8.44 24 2.81 156 18.29

Total 267 31.30 437 51.23 149 17.47 853 100

The table shows that

Table 14

Frequency and Distribution of types of aggression (Anger) of the respondents when

grouped according to family structure

Anger

Family Structure High Moderate Low Total

f % f % f % f %
Both Parents 79 9.26 453 53.11 165 19.34 697 81.71
Solo Parent 19 2.23 101 11.84 36 4.22 156 18.29

Total 98 11.49 554 64.95 201 23.56 853 100

The data in table indicates that when the respondents are grouped according to their

family structure 79 or 80.61% of respondents coming from both parents have high anger

and 19 or 19.39% from solo parent. While in terms of moderate anger, living with both
 51

parent respondents have 453 or 81.77% and 101 or 18.23% in solo parent. It is also

shown that 165 or 82.09% of both parent respondents have low anger while solo parent

respondents have 36 or 17.91%. Therefore, this means that among the two family

structures most of respondents tend to have moderate anger with 554 or 100%.

Table 15

Frequency and Distribution of types of aggression (Hostility) of the respondents when

grouped according to family structure

Hostility

Family Structure High Moderate Low Total

f % f % f % f %
Both Parents 128 15 425 49.82 144 16.89 697 81.71

Solo Parent 29 3.40 103 12.08 24 2.81 156 18.29

Total 157 18.41 528 61.90 168 19.70 853 100

The data in table indicates that when the respondents are grouped according to

their family structure 128 or 80.53% of respondents coming from both parents have high

hostility and 29 or 18.47% from solo parent. While in terms of moderate hostility, living

with both parent respondents have 425 or 80.49% and 103 or 19.51% in solo parent. It is

also shown that 144 or 85.71% of both parent respondents have low hostility while solo

parent respondents have 24 or 14.29%. Therefore, this means that among the two family

structures majority of respondents tend to have moderate hostility with 528 or 100%
 52

3. Is there a significant difference on the type of aggression of the respondents when

grouped according to profile variables?

3.1 Age
Table 16
Chi- square results on the type of aggression of the respondents when grouped according
to age

Variables Df X2 Probability Decision at 0.05

value
Physical 6 17.193 0.009 Reject Ho
aggression

Verbal 6 10.971 0.089 Accept Ho

aggression

Anger 6 26.982 0.000 Reject Ho

Hostility 6 16.295 0.012 Reject Ho

The table shows the significant difference of aggression to the respondents when

grouped according to profile variables. It can be observed that as regards aggression

(physical aggression, anger and hostility), the probability values are less than the .05 level

of significance. Therefore, the hypothesis which states that there is a significant

difference between aggression and age is accepted. This means that respondents with age

bracket of (11-12, 13-14, 15-16, and 17) are generally aggressive in terms of physical

aggression, anger and hostility. While in the verbal aggression of the respondents the

probability value is greater than .05 level of significance. The null hypothesis is accepted

which means that there is no significant difference between aggression (verbal

aggression) and age.

 53

3.2 Gender

Table 17
Chi- square results on the type of aggression of the respondents when grouped according
to gender

Variables Df X2 Probability Interpretation at

value 0.05
Physical 2 3.670 0.160 Accept Ho
aggression

Verbal 2 3.341 0.188 Accept Ho

aggression

Anger 2 13.298 0.001 Reject Ho

Hostility 2 7.035 0.030 Reject Ho

The table indicates that in terms of physical aggression and verbal aggression of

the respondents the probability values are greater than .05 level of significance which

means that there is no significant difference between aggression and age in terms of

physical aggression and verbal aggression. While in the anger and hostility of the

respondents the probability values are less than the .05 level of significance this means

that the null hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, there is no significant difference between

aggression and age in terms of anger and hostility.

Males and females express their reactions to family change in different ways

where boys are more likely to externalize while girls are more likely to internalize their

emotions (Davies & Lindsay, 2001, cited in Ram & Hou, 2005; Shaw et al., 1998, cited

in Ram & Hou, 2005).

 54

3.3 Family Structure

Table 18

Chi- square results on the type of aggression of the respondents when grouped according
to family structure

Variables Df X2 Probability Decision at 0.05

value
Physical 2 0.759 0.684 Accept Ho
aggression

Verbal 2 4.562 0.102 Accept Ho

aggression

Anger 2 0.100 0.951 Accept Ho

Hostility 2 2.330 0.312 Accept Ho

The table shows that among the four types of aggression (physical aggression,

verbal aggression, anger and hostility) the probability values are greater than the .05 level

of significance which means that there is no significant difference between aggression

and family structure.

In relation to this, Cernkovich and Giordano (1987, cited in Paschall et al., 1996),

found that adolescent delinquent behavior was not associated with family structure but

was related to the quality of relationships between the adolescent and their parents. In a

later study, Paschall and her colleagues obtained similar results in a White sub-sample of

adolescent males. Among this group, violent behavior was not associated with family

structure but was significantly related to parental attachment (Paschall et al., 1996).