37th PAPJA National Convention Centro Escolar University - Makati

2023 Psychology Department

Interactive Influence of Gender and Personality Type on Aggression

Levels in Emerging Romantic Relationships as a basis for Cognitive
Behavioral Therapy

Aleah Casey Lanuza

Anita Kristiana Franco
Alexandra Marie Isalos
Johann Katherine Lacson
Centro Escolar University - Makati

Abstract:

Aggression is an inevitable factor within emerging romantic relationships. Gender and

personality are factors that may be a root to aggression levels or aggressive behavior in
romantic relationships. In terms of gender, previous studies have identified that males are
more likely to express aggression physically, while females are expected to feel aggression
or hostility internally. Furthermore, studies show that Personality Type A is expected to be
more aggressive compared to Personality Type B and A/B. This study investigated the
interactive influence of gender and personality type on the aggression levels in emerging
romantic relationships. A total of 8 participants, with 4 male and 4 female, from Centro
Escolar University (Makati) were tested to determine their A/B Personality Type through the
A/B Personality Questionnaire from Dallas Development based on Friedman and
Rosenman’s A/B Personality Type and their aggression levels for the pre-test and post-test
with the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (1992). Along with this, a social experiment
was conducted as the treatment necessary for determining their aggression levels which was
observed and recorded for naturalistic observation. The findings of the study suggest that
although gender may have a significant influence on aggression levels within emerging
romantic relationships, personality type shows no significant influence on aggression levels
in emerging romantic relationships. The findings of the study may be beneficial to improve
romantic relationships as part of the Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.

Keywords: aggression, gender, personality type, romantic relationships

37th PAPJA National Convention
2024
Romantic relationships, whether established or
emerging, profoundly impact our lives by providing
love, companionship, and a profound sense of
connection. Emerging relationships are particularly
exciting as two individuals embark on a journey of
discovery, facing challenges, learning to communicate,
and building trust. Through patience, understanding,
and commitment, these relationships have the potential
to flourish into lifelong partnerships filled with love,
growth, and shared experiences.
Emerging romantic relationships are delicate bonds
that often encounter conflicts and aggression on their
path to growth and stability. As two individuals navigate
the uncharted territory of love, their unique
backgrounds, perspectives, and expectations collide,
creating fertile ground for disagreements. Romantic
relationships are fundamental to individuals' lives and
contribute significantly to their overall well-being and
satisfaction (Amato & Previti, 2017). The early stages
of a romantic relationship, often referred to as emerging
romantic relationships, play a critical role in shaping the
trajectory and outcomes of the partnership.
A crucial aspect of relationship dynamics is the quality
of the relationship, which can be influenced by various
factors, including conflicts that arise between partners
(Bradbury et al., 2018). Miscommunication and
differing needs can fuel tensions, sparking conflicts that
challenge the foundation of the relationship. Insecurities
and fears may manifest as aggression, as each person
struggles to protect their vulnerabilities. In some
instances, these conflicts may escalate to aggression,
leading to detrimental consequences for both
individuals involved (Arriaga & Agnew, 2018).
While conflicts are common in relationships, the
extent to which conflicts escalate into aggression may
vary depending on individual and contextual factors
(Arriaga & Agnew, 2018). Gender is one potential
factor influencing aggression in romantic relationships,
as research suggests that men and women may exhibit
different levels and strategies of aggression (Archer,
2018). Additionally, personality type, characterized by
Type A (competitive, impatient, and easily angered) and
Type B (relaxed, patient, and less prone to anger) traits,
has been linked to distinct patterns of aggression in
various contexts.
However, these conflicts need not spell doom; instead,
they can serve as opportunities for growth and
understanding. By embracing open and empathetic
communication, couples can navigate these obstacles,
forging a deeper connection and discovering the
strength and resilience required to weather the storms of
love, ultimately fostering a bond that is stronger and
more enduring than before. Understanding this
interaction can inform targeted therapeutic
interventions, addressing individuals' unique needs.
Centro Escolar University - Makati
Psychology Department
Acknowledging the potentially harmful influence of
aggression and anger on a relationship, these therapeutic
interventions provide a secure environment for couples
to delve into the fundamental reasons behind their
conflicts and acquire more positive methods of
emotional expression.
Despite the existing knowledge on these factors, there
is still a gap in the literature regarding how gender and
personality type interact to influence aggression levels
in romantic relationships. Therefore, this research aims
to explore the relationship between gender, personality
type, and aggression in romantic relationships. By doing
so, it aims to contribute to the existing literature and
offer insights into how to prevent and address
aggression in romantic relationships.
Statement of the Problem
1. What are the profile of the respondents in terms of:
A. Gender
B. Year of Relationship
2. What is the level of aggression of the participants
before and after?
3. What is the personality type of each participant?
4. How does gender influence aggression levels in
romantic relationships?
5. How does personality type influence aggression
levels in romantic relationships?
6. How does the social experiment affect their
aggression level when compared:
A. Male
B. Female
Hypotheses
H0:: There is no significant influence of gender on
aggression levels in romantic relationships.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant influence
of gender on aggression levels in romantic relationships.
H0: There is no significant influence of personality type
on aggression levels in romantic relationships.
2
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON
Ha: There is a significant influence of personality type
on aggression levels in romantic relationships.
Emerging Romantic Relationships
Understanding the dynamics, factors influencing
quality, and potential sources of conflicts in emerging
romantic relationships is crucial for promoting healthy
and satisfying partnerships, as these relationships have a
significant influence on personal growth and overall
well-being during the transition from adolescence to
young adulthood (Arnett, 2017).
Emerging romantic relationships during adolescence
are characterized by exploration, emotional bonding,
and the development of relationship skills, which lay the
foundation for future relationships in young adulthood.
Meanwhile, emerging adulthood represents a distinct
phase of development focused on exploration, identity
formation, and the transition to independence. Romantic
relationships during this period involve increased
commitment, stability, and the pursuit of long-term
partnerships, allowing individuals to establish and
explore their sense of self within the context of romantic
relationships (Arnett, 2017).
The quality of emerging romantic relationships in both
adolescence and young adulthood is influenced by
various factors. Effective communication, including
active listening and constructive conflict resolution,
plays a critical role in promoting relationship
satisfaction and stability. Intimacy, characterized by
emotional closeness and shared vulnerabilities,
enhances relationship quality by fostering trust and
connection (Davila et al., 2018).
Conflicts are inevitable in emerging romantic
relationships, and they can arise from individual
differences, external stressors, and unrealistic
expectations. Individual differences in personality traits,
attachment styles, and communication styles can lead to
misunderstandings and conflicts between partners
(Campbell & Stanton, 2019). External stressors, such as
academic pressures, work demands, or family conflicts,
can strain the relationship and hinder effective conflict
resolution. Furthermore, unrealistic expectations about
love and relationships, influenced by societal norms and
media depictions, can contribute to dissatisfaction and
conflict.
Bandura’s Social Learning Theory on
Aggression
Figure 1. Social Learning Theory Framework
Undoubtedly, aggression is a significant and crucial
issue in our current era. Given the rise in both internal
and external warfare, destruction, as well as
interpersonal violence and conflict, it becomes essential
to consider various perspectives on aggression in order
to comprehend this complex phenomenon from multiple
dimensions (Özçelik & Dilek, 2017). Bandura posited
that the majority of hostile aggressive actions are driven
by motives beyond causing harm alone, making them
instrumental in nature (Bandura, 1973, p. 3, as cited in
Özçelik & Dilek, 2017).
Bandura also further suggests that aggression
encompasses behaviors leading to personal harm,
whether psychological or physical, as well as property
destruction. However, he emphasizes the significance of
the social labeling process, wherein social judgments
play a crucial role in determining which injurious or
destructive acts are categorized as aggressive. For
Bandura, aggression or aggressive behavior is based on
social learning, and he calls this phenomena learned
aggression, which in his opinion, is reinforced through
various hostile phenomena.
In a similar vein to Fromm's concept of the social
character, one could draw a parallel with the idea that
individuals are influenced and shaped by their
environment. Interestingly, this perspective can shed
light on why certain cultures that strongly disapprove of
violence tend to adopt a more peaceful and
accommodating approach to conflict, while others that
emphasize machismo, authority, and even violence for
acts of shame, tend to resort to justified violence and
aggression in dealing with conflicts (Özçelik & Dilek,
2017).
3
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON
Aggression in Romantic Relationships
Each person's interpretation of what a romantic
relationship means and how it affects their lives will
vary. Many in-depth social scientists have become
interested in romantic relationship concerns, and
politicians and local groups have also shown interest in
the subject. Romantic relationships are frequently
viewed as one of the social issues that require attention.
Numerous teenagers and adults are impacted by the
major public health problem of aggressive behavior in
romantic relationships. Recent meta-analytic studies on
the prevalence of dating abuse by Wincentak, Connolly,
and Card (2017) indicated that 14% of girls and 8% of
boys reported sexual assault, with 20% of 13 to
18-year-olds reporting physical abuse.
Dating violence (DV) or intimate partner violence
(IPV) are terms used to describe aggressive behavior in
romantic relationships. Psychological abuse was
described as threats or harm to a partner's sense of
self-worth by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention in 2016. Examples include name-calling,
bullying, insults, and attempts to isolate the victim from
friends and family. Pinching, striking, shoving,
slapping, punching, or kicking are examples of physical
hostility. Sexual violence occurs when a partner is
persuaded, threatened, or pushed into having an
inappropriate sexual relationship. One of the most
prevalent types of abuse in romantic relationships is
emotional abuse.
Dating violence can take many different forms, such
as physical, sexual, psychological, or emotional
aggression, as well as stalking. Additionally, aggressive
behavior is a criminogenic feature that is frequently
linked to a variety of violent crimes, including dating
violence, according to Rahim et al. (2016). Another
instance of dating violence is online dating fraud, which
is particularly concerning because it can result in a
person's financial loss or the breakup of a relationship,
both of which cause them great emotional and
psychological pain. Also, relational aggression is
another term for violent behavior in love partnerships.
"Romantic relational aggression" was defined by
Kokkinos (2015) as the act of hurting, utilizing rumors
to manipulate romantic partners' social relationships,
love withdrawal, and jealousy induction. Aggression in
romantic relationships has been connected to depressive
illnesses, alcohol-related issues, and problems with
one's physical health.
Gender and Aggression in Romantic
Relationships
Many researchers have made efforts to understand the
variations in aggression between sexes. Given that
human aggression is a multifaceted social behavior
influenced by various factors throughout a person's life,
it is crucial to examine the interplay between social
influences and neurobiological mechanisms in shaping
aggression.
Women commonly exhibit higher prevalence of
indirect forms of aggression, such as spreading rumors,
compared to other forms of aggression. When
examining behavior in controlled laboratory settings,
women generally display lower levels of aggression
compared to men. However, this discrepancy diminishes
when individuals, including women, are provoked or
subjected to provocation (Denson et al., 2018). In
real-life situations, women demonstrate a similar
likelihood of engaging in aggression towards their
romantic partners compared to men. However, men tend
to inflict more severe physical and psychological harm.
The higher levels of aggression observed in males
compared to females can be attributed to societal factors
influencing gender socialization.
In a patriarchal Turkish society, boys are often
encouraged to exhibit courage, boldness, and pride in
their masculinity. Conversely, girls are often taught to
be timid, shy, and passive. This cultural context
supports and reinforces aggressive behaviors in boys as
a sign of masculinity, while girls face greater social
consequences for displaying aggression (Gündoğdu et
al., 2018). While a small minority of women also
exhibit sexually violent behavior, it remains relatively
uncommon. Women can be susceptible to aggression
under the influence of alcohol, although this tendency
may be restricted to those with higher levels of
pre-existing aggressive traits.
Notably, a strong fear of being harmed serves as a
significant deterrent against engaging in direct
aggression among women (Denson et al., 2018).
Gender has been extensively examined as a variable in
studies investigating romantic relationships. It is widely
recognized that many societal differences between men
and women stem from gender roles (Winstead &
Derlaga, 1993, as cited in Gündoğdu et al., 2018). In
this context, it can be observed that men, during their
emerging adulthood phase, perceive themselves as
strong and dominant individuals. Analyzing the data
revealed that gender, as well as the sub-dimensions of
IRBI (Intimate Relationship Beliefs Inventory),
specifically related to different thinking and gender
differences, significantly predict the levels of aggression
(Anger Suppression, Hostility, Anger Expression, and
Verbal Aggression) in emerging adults. The
sub-dimension of IRBI related to different thinking
encompasses unrealistic statements about how divergent
thoughts can be destructive (Gündoğdu et al., 2018).
The study of aggression has primarily focused on
men, leaving women's aggression relatively overlooked.
It is proposed that there is a demand for additional
4
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON
research that is guided by theory to explore aggression
in women. Conducting such research could aid in the
creation of evidence-based treatments that effectively
address the specific risks associated with aggression in
women (Denson et al., 2018).
Personality Type A/B
The Personality Type A and B was created by
cardiologists Meyer Friedman and Ray H. Rosenman in
1959 while studying the correlation between personality
types and risk of heart disease (McLeod, 2023).
Furthermore, it is the type of personality concerned with
an individual’s response to stress. Although the name
suggests a personality typology, it is more accurately
viewed as a trait continuum, with the other showing
more dominance or inclination. In the study of
Friedman and Rosenman, individuals with Personality
Type A are classified as those who are competitive,
organized, and ambitious. While individuals with
Personality Type B are identified as being relaxed,
caring, and flexible (Sissons, 2022).
With Personality Type A and B being concerned with
stress and health, various studies utilized this on
emotional stress experience, burnout, and academic
achievement. A study conducted by Ofojebe, Okoli, and
Okpala (2019) regarding the role of gender and
Personality Type A and B on emotional stressful
experience concluded that Personality Type is a
significant factor in manifestation of emotional stress, in
contrast to gender as a factor which does not
significantly affect the manifestation of emotional
stress. However, their results showed that there is
indeed an interactive effect between gender and
Personality Type in emotional stress as reaction to
noxious life experiences.
A descriptive study which investigated the extent of
burnout in employed and concurrently enrolled nurses
posited that nurses with Type A personality experience
greater degree of burnout than nurses with Type B
personality (Brennan, 2019). Which means that
individuals with Type A personalities are further
believed to be prone to stress that would lead to a
burnout compared to individuals with Type B
personality. However, the findings of the study provided
little evidence of nurses with Type A personality to be
burnout to a higher degree in contrast to nurses with
Type B personality.
The study by Dahar, Laatif, and Yousuf (2019)
examined the academic achievement comparing
university students with Type A and Type B personality.
It has shown both the advantageous and detrimental
characteristics of Type A and Type B personality to
academic achievement. The said advantages of Type A
personality would be diligent and goal-oriented, while
individuals with Type B personality’s advantageous
characteristics would be flexible and sociable. However,
both of the personality types have detrimental
characteristics to academic achievement such as Type B
being linked to procrastination and lack of focus, while
Type A are reported to have higher levels of hostility
and impatience. The findings of the study strengthened
the claim that individuals with Type A personality are
more likely to show signs of hostility and anger linked
with aggression compared to individuals with Type B
personality.
Personality Type Within Romantic
Relationships
The majority of people’s main priority in life is to find
a prosperous romantic relationship. In order to achieve
that, individuals take into consideration various factors
such as personality type, attachment style, and
self-esteem, to strengthen the quality of the relationship
(Gerlach, Driebe, & Reinhard, 2018). A study
conducted by (Weidmann, Ledermann, & Grob, 2017)
with the use of the five-factor model of personality, also
known as the Big Five, on 237 heterosexual couples
revealed that only agreeableness was found to lead to
the satisfaction of relationships in a span of two years.
On the other hand, a person belonging in the
personality type A category may not be suitable for
commitments since they are labeled to be impatient and
prioritizes work over everything. Individuals who have
type A behavior pattern may show early signs of
aggression when their limits are pushed (Mcleod, 2023).
This could cause complications in personal and
professional relationships (Raypole, 2021). Meanwhile,
type B contradicts personality type A in terms of being
calm and relaxed. Stress management comes naturally
to them (Raypole, 2021). People with personality type B
are often empathetic towards others, introspective,
imaginative, and less anxious (Mcleod, 2023) that
makes them ideal to be in romantic relationships.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
Couples therapy is a type of psychotherapy that can
aid in the improvement of your relationship with your
partner. If you are suffering relationship problems,
couples therapy might help you rebuild your
connection.
"Couples therapy can address a wide range of
relationship issues, including recurring conflicts,
feelings of disconnection, an affair, issues related to sex,
or difficulties due to external stressors," says Brian
Mueller, PhD, a couples therapist at Columbia
University Medical Center.
According to Mueller, one type of therapy that can
benefit couples is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT).
5
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON
In this type of psychotherapy, patients learn to identify
and change unhelpful or problematic thought patterns
that negatively affect their behavior and emotions.
It's critical to understand the conditions, emotions, and
thoughts that lead to maladaptive behavior. This
process, however, could be difficult for some people,
especially if they have problems reflecting. The time
you spend naming these concepts, can also aid in
self-discovery and provide perspectives that are
essential to the healing process. In cognitive-behavioral
therapy, clients are frequently given new abilities that
they can put to use in everyday life. For instance, a
person with a substance use disorder might put new
coping mechanisms to the test and practice avoiding or
handling social situations that might otherwise lead to
relapse.
Additionally, CBT is used to treat many different
ailments, such as addiction, problems with aggression,
bipolar disorder, personality disorders, depression, panic
attacks, and phobias. CBT is known to help individuals
in managing stress, sorrow, low self-esteem,
relationship problems, and a variety of other conditions
in addition to those affecting their mental health
(Kendra Cherry, MSEd, 2022).
In spite of the fact that people cannot control every
part of their environment, cognitive behavioral therapy
teaches patients that they are in control of how they
perceive and respond to their surroundings.
Research Gap
Within this research topic, there are multiple perceived
influences that seemingly affect the aggression levels of
the subjects such as the Gender and Personality type A
and B. The goal of the research is to find out the
correlation between those factors and the subsequent
reaction of the subjects. Personality Type A is described
as competitive while Personality Type B is defined as
more creative and lax— being the main factor
predetermined by the researchers.
As the research focuses on the reactions of the
participants, it is difficult to fully measure the
correlation due to the capability of the subject to lie and
deny their emotions and actions, being one of the most
pivotal and primary gaps that exist in this research
topic, falling under the classification of both knowledge
gap and evidence gap as the conclusion of the topic
leaves much to be desired when looking at the results.
There is also the issue of how the social experiment
was conducted in of itself— being viewed by the
researchers for the observation process and hereby
possibly affecting the behavior of the participants which
is supposedly meant to be drawn out. This can be
classified as a methodological gap as it is the location
and process of the experiment that is considered a
factor.
With this in tow, another issue that comes up as a form
of gap for the researchers is the lack of reference,
particularly regarding how many years that the couple
have been together. There isn’t much discussion done
on the topic regarding the factor of the length of
relationships affecting the aggression level, being
considered a limitation by the researchers.
Method
Participants
The participants for the study will be gathered through
convenience sampling. The participants shall be
bonafide students of Centro Escolar University - Makati
and should be situated in a romantic relationship for at
least 1-4 years in order to participate in the study. Their
gender will be taken into account as the study focuses
on how gender influences aggression levels in a
romantic relationship.
Procedure
After gathering the participants for the study through
convenience sampling, they were given an informed
consent to sign. This informed consent confirmed their
participation throughout the experimental process. The
experimental procedure took place on the 8th floor of
Centro Escolar University (Makati) – Legazpi Village
and 2nd floor of Centro Escolar University (Makati) –
Gil Puyat, with a week of interval for the trial. Only one
trial/treatment was conducted for each participant to
avoid testing threat. The social experiment would
include the use of a male and female confederate to lead
the participants to believe their partner to be capable of
cheating on them which may instigate aggression.
Pre-test
Before proceeding to the social experiment, an A/B
Personality Type test and an Aggression Level
questionnaire were given to the participants in order to
determine their personality type and initial aggression
level before proceeding to the experimental procedure.
While answering the questionnaires, the participants
were observed by the researchers as part of the
naturalistic observation in line with the social
experiment to be conducted.
Treatment
The participants were asked to have a short interview
with a researcher to give time for the confederate and
6
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON
partner of the participant to practice. This interview also
served as additional information for their verbatim
responses. After the interview, the social experiment
began with an intimate physical and social interaction
between the partners and the confederate which lasted
for 1 minute and 30 seconds. Through this, the
participants’ response or behavior were observed and
recorded by the researchers. This can be considered as a
limitation that was set, becoming a gap.
References were also considered a limitation in terms
of knowledge. The years of relationship as a factor for
aggression level had barely any academic discussions
that can be utilized by the researchers, resulting in the
removal of this factor as a whole from the experiment.
Post-test
After the participants’ reaction to the treatment, they
were given the same Aggression Questionnaire to
determine their aggression levels based on the
treatment. The participants and their partners were then
provided with a full disclosure and food compensation
to balance the risk and benefit. Food compensation was
also provided for the confederates. Finally, the
researchers measured the results and data from the
experiment.
Results
Aggression Levels of the Participants based on the Buss-Perry Aggression Scale Before and After Treatment
Alpha (Male; Personality Type A)
Table 1. Pre-test Alpha
As shown in Table 1. Pre-test Alpha, the participant's
score on physical aggression ranged from 0 to 9, with a
mean score of 2.778 and a standard deviation of 2.108.
The participant's total score for physical aggression was
25. This indicates that the participant reported a
moderate level of physical aggression. The participant's
score on verbal aggression ranged from 0 to 5, with a
mean score of 4.200 and a standard deviation of 1.789.
Materials
A questionnaire about A/B Personality from Dallas
Development based on Friedman and Rosenman’s and
about their aggression level from Buss-Perry will be
prepared and distributed among eight participants
chosen by convenience sampling. It is composed of
three parts; demographics, A/B Personality test, and
aggression questionnaire, respectively.
The first portion will gather personal information from
the participants including the participant's age, sex, and
year/s in a romantic relationship. For the second and
third portion, participants will be asked to answer the
personality test and rate each characteristic listed using
a likert scale.
* In order to protect the confidentiality of the participants' identities,
the NATO phonetic alphabet will be utilized to assign pseudonyms to
each participant. Participant 1 will be referred to as Alpha, Participant
2 as Bravo, Participant 3 as Charlie, Participant 4 as Delta, Participant
5 as Echo, Participant 6 as Foxtrot, Participant 7 as Golf, and
Participant 8 as Hotel. These pseudonyms will be used throughout the
research study to maintain the anonymity of the individuals involved.
Full participation of the participant is required in
answering the questionnaires. For ethical
considerations, the researchers will provide a consent
form prior to the first page of the questionnaire before
granting access to the whole questionnaire. The Data
Privacy Act (R.A 10173) will also be applied in the
conduct of the survey. The use of consent form serves as
voluntary participation of the respondents.
The participant's total score for verbal aggression was
21. This suggests that the participant reported a
relatively high level of verbal aggression. The
participant's score on anger ranged from 0 to 7, with a
mean score of 5.000 and a standard deviation of 0.000.
The participant's total score for anger was 35. The
absence of standard deviation suggests that all the
responses for anger were the same, indicating a
7
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON
consistent and high level of anger reported by the
participant. The participant's score on hostility ranged
from 0 to 8, with a mean score of 4.000 and a standard
deviation of 1.852. The participant's total score for
hostility was 32. This suggests that the participant
Table 2. Post-test Alpha
Referring to Table 2. Post test Alpha, the participant's
score on physical aggression ranged from 0 to 9, with a
mean score of 3.444 and a standard deviation of 1.944.
The participant's total score for physical aggression was
31. This indicates that the participant's level of physical
aggression slightly increased after the treatment. The
participant's score on verbal aggression ranged from 0
to 5, with a mean score of 4.200 and a standard
deviation of 1.095. The participant's total score for
verbal aggression was 21. This suggests that the
participant's level of verbal aggression remained
unchanged after the treatment. The participant's score
on anger ranged from 0 to 7, with a mean score of 3.714
Bravo (Female; Personality Type A)
Table 3. Pre-test Bravo
As shown in Table 3. Pre-test Bravo, the participant's
score on physical aggression ranged from 0 to 9, with a
mean score of 3.222 and a standard deviation of 1.716.
The participant's total score for physical aggression was
29. This indicates that the participant reported a
moderate level of physical aggression. The participant's
score on verbal aggression ranged from 0 to 5, with a
mean score of 3.600 and a standard deviation of 1.673.
The participant's total score for verbal aggression was
18. This suggests that the participant reported a
moderate level of verbal aggression. The participant's
reported a moderate level of hostility. Overall, the
participant displayed moderate levels of physical
aggression, relatively high levels of verbal aggression,
consistent and high levels of anger, and moderate levels
of hostility before the treatment.
and a standard deviation of 1.704. The participant's total
score for anger was 26. This indicates a slight decrease
in the participant's level of anger after the treatment.
The participant's score on hostility ranged from 0 to 8,
with a mean score of 2.875 and a standard deviation of
1.553. The participant's total score for hostility was 23.
This suggests that the participant's level of hostility
decreased after the treatment. After the treatment, there
was a slight increase in physical aggression, no
significant change in verbal aggression, a slight
decrease in anger, and a decrease in hostility. These
results suggest that the treatment had mixed effects on
the participant's aggression levels, with some factors
showing slight increases and others showing decreases.
score on anger ranged from 0 to 7, with a mean score of
3.000 and a standard deviation of 1.633. The
participant's total score for anger was 21. This indicates
a moderate level of anger reported by the participant.
The participant's score on hostility ranged from 0 to 8,
with a mean score of 3.375 and a standard deviation of
1.506. The participant's total score for hostility was 27.
This suggests that the participant reported a moderate
level of hostility. Bravo reported moderate levels of
physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and
hostility before the treatment.
8
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON

Table 4. Post-test Bravo

Referring to Table 4. Post Test Bravo, the participant's
score on physical aggression ranged from 0 to 9, with a
mean score of 2.778 and a standard deviation of 1.856.
The participant's total score for physical aggression was
25. This indicates a slight decrease in the participant's
level of physical aggression after the treatment. The
participant's score on verbal aggression ranged from 0
to 5, with a mean score of 3.000 and a standard
deviation of 1.581. The participant's total score for
verbal aggression was 15. This suggests that the
participant's level of verbal aggression remained
relatively unchanged after the treatment. The
participant's score on anger ranged from 0 to 7, with a
mean score of 2.429 and a standard deviation of 1.272.
The participant's total score for anger was 17. This
indicates a decrease in the participant's level of anger
after the treatment. The participant's score on hostility
ranged from 0 to 8, with a mean score of 2.875 and a
standard deviation of 1.808. The participant's total score
for hostility was 23. This suggests that the participant's
level of hostility decreased after the treatment. These
results suggest that the treatment had a positive effect
on the participant's aggression levels, leading to a
reduction in physical aggression, anger, and hostility.

Charlie (Male; Personality Type B)

Table 5. Pre-test Charlie

As shown on Table 5. Pre-test Charlie, the
participant's score on physical aggression ranged from 0
to 9, with a mean score of 2.222 and a standard
deviation of 1.302. The participant's total score for
physical aggression was 20. This indicates a relatively
low level of physical aggression reported by the
participant. The participant's score on verbal aggression
ranged from 0 to 5, with a mean score of 2.600 and a
standard deviation of 0.994. The participant's total score
for verbal aggression was 13. This suggests a moderate
level of verbal aggression reported by the participant.
The participant's score on anger ranged from 0 to 7,
with a mean score of 2.286 and a standard deviation of
1.113. The participant's total score for anger was 16.
This indicates a moderate level of anger reported by the
participant. The participant's score on hostility ranged
from 0 to 8, with a mean score of 2.500 and a standard
deviation of 1.195. The participant's total score for
hostility was 20. This suggests a relatively low level of
hostility reported by the participant. The participant
Charlie reported relatively low levels of physical
aggression and hostility, and moderate levels of verbal
aggression and anger during the pre-test.

9
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON

Table 6. Post-test Charlie

As reference to Table 6. Post test Charlie, the
participant's score on physical aggression ranged from 0
to 9, with a mean score of 2.778 and a standard
deviation of 1.302. The participant's total score for
physical aggression was 25. This indicates a slight
increase in the participant's level of physical aggression
after the treatment. The participant's score on verbal
aggression ranged from 0 to 5, with a mean score of
2.400 and a standard deviation of 0.548. The
participant's total score for verbal aggression was 12.
This suggests a slight decrease in the participant's level
of verbal aggression after the treatment. The
participant's score on anger ranged from 0 to 7, with a
mean score of 3.000 and a standard deviation of 0.816.
The participant's total score for anger was 21. The
participant's score on hostility ranged from 0 to 8, with a
mean score of 3.125 and a standard deviation of 0.835.
The participant's total score for hostility was 25. After
the treatment, there was a slight increase in physical
aggression, a slight decrease in verbal aggression, a
slight increase in anger, and a slight increase in hostility.

Delta (Female; Personality Type A/B)

Table 7. Pre-test Delta

Referring to Table 7. Pre-test Delta, the participant's
score on physical aggression ranged from 0 to 9, with a
mean score of 2.556 and a standard deviation of 1.130.
The participant's total score for physical aggression was
23. This indicates a moderate level of physical
aggression reported by the participant. The participant's
score on verbal aggression ranged from 0 to 5, with a
mean score of 3.200 and a standard deviation of 0.837.
The participant's total score for verbal aggression was
16. This suggests a relatively high level of verbal
aggression reported by the participant. The participant's
score on anger ranged from 0 to 7, with a mean score of
2.571 and a standard deviation of 1.618. The
participant's total score for anger was 18. This indicates
a moderate level of anger reported by the participant.
The participant's score on hostility ranged from 0 to 8,
with a mean score of 4.125 and a standard deviation of
0.835. The participant's total score for hostility was 33.
This suggests a relatively high level of hostility reported
by the participant. The participant Delta reported a
moderate level of physical aggression and anger, as well
as a relatively high level of verbal aggression and
hostility during the pre-test.

10
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON

Table 8. Post-test Delta

According to Table 8. Post test Delta, the participant's
score on physical aggression ranged from 0 to 9, with a
mean score of 2.333 and a standard deviation of 1.732.
The participant's total score for physical aggression was
21. This indicates a slight decrease in the participant's
level of physical aggression after the treatment. The
participant's score on verbal aggression ranged from 0
to 5, with a mean score of 2.800 and a standard
deviation of 0.837. The participant's total score for
verbal aggression was 14. This suggests a slight
decrease in the participant's level of verbal aggression
after the treatment. The participant's score on anger
ranged from 0 to 7, with a mean score of 2.571 and a
standard deviation of 1.272. The participant's total score
for anger was 18. This indicates no significant change in
the participant's level of anger after the treatment. The
participant's score on hostility ranged from 0 to 8, with a
mean score of 4.375 and a standard deviation of 0.744.
The participant's total score for hostility was 35. This
suggests a slight increase in the participant's level of
hostility after the treatment. After the treatment, there
was a slight decrease in physical aggression and verbal
aggression, no significant change in anger, and a slight
increase in hostility.

Echo (Male; Personality Type A/B)

Table 9. Pre-test Echo

As reference to Table 9. Pre-test Echo, the participant's
score on physical aggression ranged from 0 to 9, with a
mean score of 3.000 and a standard deviation of 1.658.
The participant's total score for physical aggression was
27. This indicates a moderate level of physical
aggression reported by the participant. The participant's
score on verbal aggression ranged from 0 to 5, with a
mean score of 2.600 and a standard deviation of 0.548.
The participant's total score for verbal aggression was
13. This suggests a relatively moderate level of verbal
aggression reported by the participant. The participant's
score on anger ranged from 0 to 7, with a mean score of
2.571 and a standard deviation of 0.535. The
participant's total score for anger was 18. This indicates
a moderate level of anger reported by the participant.
The participant's score on hostility ranged from 0 to 8,
with a mean score of 4.125 and a standard deviation of
0.835. The participant's total score for hostility was 33.
This suggests a relatively high level of hostility reported
by the participant. Participant Echo reported a moderate
level of physical aggression, verbal aggression, and
anger, as well as a relatively high level of hostility
during the pre-test.

11
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON

Table 10. Post-test Echo

Referring to Table 10. Post test Echo, the participant's
score on physical aggression ranged from 0 to 9, with a
mean score of 3.333 and a standard deviation of 1.118.
The participant's total score for physical aggression was
30. This indicates a slight increase in the participant's
level of physical aggression after the treatment. The
participant's score on verbal aggression ranged from 0
to 5, with a mean score of 3.000 and a standard
deviation of 1.000. The participant's total score for
verbal aggression was 15. This suggests no significant
change in the participant's level of verbal aggression
after the treatment. The participant's score on anger
ranged from 0 to 7, with a mean score of 2.286 and a
standard deviation of 0.488. The participant's total score
for anger was 16. This indicates a slight decrease in the
participant's level of anger after the treatment. The
participant's score on hostility ranged from 0 to 8, with a
mean score of 3.250 and a standard deviation of 0.707.
The participant's total score for hostility was 26. This
suggests a slight decrease in the participant's level of
hostility after the treatment. After the treatment, there
was a slight increase in physical aggression, no
significant change in verbal aggression, a slight
decrease in anger, and a slight decrease in hostility.

Foxtrot (Female; Personality Type A/B)

Table 11. Pre-test Foxtrot

As shown in Table 11. Pre-test Foxtrot, the
participant's score on physical aggression ranged from 0
to 9, with a mean score of 2.222 and a standard
deviation of 1.093. The participant's total score for
physical aggression was 20. This indicates a relatively
moderate level of physical aggression reported by the
participant. The participant's score on verbal aggression
ranged from 0 to 5, with a mean score of 2.400 and a
standard deviation of 1.140. The participant's total score
for verbal aggression was 12. This suggests a moderate
level of verbal aggression reported by the participant.
The participant's score on anger ranged from 0 to 7,
with a mean score of 3.143 and a standard deviation of
1.069. The participant's total score for anger was 22.
This indicates a relatively high level of anger reported
by the participant. The participant's score on hostility
ranged from 0 to 8, with a mean score of 3.250 and a
standard deviation of 1.282. The participant's total score
for hostility was 26. This suggests a relatively high level
of hostility reported by the participant. Participant
Foxtrot reported a moderate level of physical aggression
and verbal aggression, as well as a relatively high level
of anger and hostility during the pre-test.

12
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON
Table 12. Post-test Foxtrot
According to Table 12. Post test Foxtrot, the
participant's score on physical aggression ranged from 0
to 9, with a mean score of 2.889 and a standard
deviation of 0.782. The participant's total score for
physical aggression was 26. This indicates a slight
increase in the participant's level of physical aggression
after the treatment. The participant's score on verbal
aggression ranged from 0 to 5, with a mean score of
2.600 and a standard deviation of 0.894. The
participant's total score for verbal aggression was 13.
This suggests no significant change in the participant's
level of verbal aggression after the treatment. The
participant's score on anger ranged from 0 to 7, with a
mean score of 2.857 and a standard deviation of 1.069.
Golf (Male; Personality Type A/B)
Table 13. Pre-test Golf
According to Table 12. Pre-test Golf, the participant's
score on physical aggression ranged from 0 to 9, with a
mean score of 2.778 and a standard deviation of 1.093.
The participant's total score for physical aggression was
25. This indicates a moderate level of physical
aggression reported by the participant. The participant's
score on verbal aggression ranged from 0 to 5, with a
mean score of 2.400 and a standard deviation of 1.517.
The participant's total score for verbal aggression was
12. This suggests a moderate level of verbal aggression
reported by the participant. The participant's score on
The participant's total score for anger was 20. This
indicates a slight decrease in the participant's level of
anger after the treatment. The participant's score on
hostility ranged from 0 to 8, with a mean score of 2.875
and a standard deviation of 0.835. The participant's total
score for hostility was 23. This suggests a slight
decrease in the participant's level of hostility after the
treatment. After the treatment, there was a slight
increase in physical aggression, no significant change in
verbal aggression, a slight decrease in anger, and a
slight decrease in hostility. These findings suggest that
the treatment had mixed effects on different aggression
factors for Participant Foxtrot.
anger ranged from 0 to 7, with a mean score of 3.714
and a standard deviation of 1.380. The participant's total
score for anger was 26. This indicates a relatively high
level of anger reported by the participant. The
participant's score on hostility ranged from 0 to 8, with a
mean score of 2.500 and a standard deviation of 1.195.
The participant's total score for hostility was 20. This
suggests a moderate level of hostility reported by the
participant. These findings suggest that the participant
may exhibit aggressive and hostile tendencies in
emerging romantic relationships.
13
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON

Table 14. Post-test Golf

In reference to Table 14. Post-test Golf, the mean score
for Physical Aggression decreased slightly to 2.556,
indicating a reduction in physical aggression tendencies
after treatment. The standard deviation remained
similar, suggesting consistent responses. The mean
score for Verbal Aggression increased to 3.200,
suggesting a potential increase in verbal aggression
tendencies. The standard deviation also increased,
indicating greater variability in responses. The mean
score for Anger decreased to 2.143, indicating a
reduction in anger after treatment. The standard
deviation decreased, suggesting more consistent
responses. The mean score for Hostility remained the
same at 2.500, with a lower standard deviation
indicating less variation. These findings suggest that the
treatment may have had a positive effect in reducing
physical aggression and anger levels for the participant,
Golf. However, there might be a potential trade-off as
verbal aggression tendencies increased.

Hotel (Female; Personality Type A/B)

Table 15. Pre-test Hotel

As shown in Table 15. Pre-test Hotel, the participant's
score on physical aggression ranged from 0 to 9, with a
mean score of 3.111 and a standard deviation of 1.167.
The participant's total score for physical aggression was
28. This indicates a moderate level of physical
aggression reported by the participant. The participant's
score on verbal aggression ranged from 0 to 5, with a
mean score of 3.000 and a standard deviation of 1.000.
The participant's total score for verbal aggression was
15. This suggests a moderate level of verbal aggression
reported by the participant. The participant's score on
anger ranged from 0 to 7, with a mean score of 3.714
and a standard deviation of 0.756. The participant's total
score for anger was 26. This indicates a relatively high
level of anger reported by the participant. The
participant's score on hostility ranged from 0 to 8, with a
mean score of 3.875 and a standard deviation of 0.835.
The participant's total score for hostility was 31. This
suggests a relatively high level of hostility reported by
the participant. Participant Hotel reported a moderate
level of physical aggression, verbal aggression, and
anger during the pre-test. The participant also reported a
relatively high level of hostility.

14
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON
Table 16. Post-test Hotel
In reference to Table 16. Post-test Hotel, the
participant's score on physical aggression ranged from 0
to 9, with a mean score of 3.000 and a standard
deviation of 1.225. The participant's total score for
physical aggression was 27. This indicates a moderate
level of physical aggression reported by the participant
after the treatment. The participant's score on verbal
aggression ranged from 0 to 5, with a mean score of
2.400 and a standard deviation of 0.548. The
participant's total score for verbal aggression was 12.
This suggests a relatively lower level of verbal
aggression reported by the participant after the
Overall Record of Results for Pre-test and Post-test
Table 17. Record of Results Pre-test
According to Table 17. Record of Results Pre-test, for
Physical Aggression, the overall mean score is 2.70833,
with males having a mean score of 2.694 and females
having a mean score of 2.722. In Verbal Aggression, the
overall mean score is 3, with males having a slightly
lower mean score of 2.950 and females having a slightly
higher mean score of 3.050.
For Anger, the overall mean score is 3.25, with males
having a higher mean score of 3.393 and females having
a slightly lower mean score of 3.107. In Hostility, the
overall mean score is 3.484375, with males having a
lower mean score of 3.281 and females having a higher
treatment. The participant's score on anger ranged from
0 to 7, with a mean score of 3.143 and a standard
deviation of 0.690. The participant's total score for
anger was 22. This indicates a moderate level of anger
reported by the participant after the treatment. The
participant's score on hostility ranged from 0 to 8, with a
mean score of 3.750 and a standard deviation of 0.886.
The participant's total score for hostility was 30. This
suggests a relatively high level of hostility reported by
the participant after the treatment. After the treatment,
there was a slight decrease in physical aggression and
verbal aggression, while anger and hostility remained at
similar levels
mean score of 3.688. The total aggression mean score is
12.442705, with males having a mean score of 12.318
and females having a slightly higher mean score of
12.567. The data suggests that, on average, participants
in emerging romantic relationships display moderate
levels of aggression.
In terms of specific aggression factors, females tend to
have slightly higher mean scores than males in Physical
Aggression, Verbal Aggression, and Hostility, while
males have a slightly higher mean score in Anger. The
overall total aggression mean score indicates a moderate
level of aggression in the sample, with both–
15
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON

males and females having similar mean scores. This suggests that gender may not have a significant influence on the
overall level of aggression in emerging romantic relationships.

Table 18. Record of Results Post-test

In reference to Table 18. Record of Results Post-test,
for Physical Aggression, the overall mean score is
2.889, with males having a slightly higher mean score
of 3.028 and females having a slightly lower mean score
of 2.750. In Verbal Aggression, the overall mean score
is 2.950, with males having a higher mean score of
3.200 and females having a lower mean score of 2.700.
For Anger, the overall mean score is 2.768, with males
and females having similar mean scores (male mean:
2.786, female mean: 2.750). In Hostility, the overall
mean score is 2.203, with males having a higher mean
score of 2.938 and females having a lower mean score
of 3.469. The total aggression mean score after the
treatment is 11.81, with males having a slightly higher
mean score of 11.952 and females having a slightly
lower mean score of 11.669. The post-test data suggests
that, on average, there was a slight increase or decrease
in aggression scores after the treatment, depending on
the aggression factor and gender. In terms of specific
aggression factors, males tend to have higher mean
scores than females in Physical Aggression, Verbal
Aggression, and Hostility, while females have a slightly
lower mean score in Verbal Aggression and Hostility.
The overall total aggression mean score indicates a
moderate level of aggression after the treatment, with
both males and females having similar mean scores.
This suggests that the treatment may have resulted in a
reduction in overall aggression levels in emerging
romantic relationships, as the total aggression mean
score decreased compared to the pre-test data.

Presentation, Interpretation, and Analysis

Verbatim Response Concept Theme

“Ano ba ‘yang questions n’yo,

Ate… Naiinis ako, pampikon
talaga.”

“Parang alam ko na ‘yung

aggression ko kasi galitin talaga
ako’ng tao eh…” Signs of Aggression

“Madali ako’ng mainis”

“Kahit lalaki ako, hindi ko pa rin

gaano dinadaan sa pisikalan… Sa
salita siguro, oo. Pero pag private
lang.”

16
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON

“Nagagalit lang ako kapag about

family matters.”

“Hindi ako kinabahan kasi noong

nakita ko na ‘yung babae, naisip ko
na ah… Hindi n’ya type.”

“Kapag stressed lang ako, doon

lang ako nagagalit.” Anger Management

“Nagagalit lang ako kapag hindi ko

ma-manage ‘yung time ko nang
maayos.”

“Siguro kung magagalit… Iisipin

ko muna kung ano importante?”
Jealousy
“’Yung nararamdaman ko
ngayon?”

“Parang gusto ko na lang maging

pader…” Agitation

“Pwede ba ako tumayo?”

“Paano siya? D’yan lang ba siya?”

“Hindi talaga ako galitin na tao.”

“Na-confuse lang ako noong una,

‘tas ‘onting selos, gano’n.”
Denial
“Pero hindi po talaga ako madali
mainis, ma-stress lang po.”

“No, don’t touch me.”

“Ini-isolate ko sarili ko kapag Trauma Response

nagagalit ako kasi alam ko na
maaapektuhan ko ‘yung ibang
tao.”

“Actually, natatawa na nga lang

ako.” Nervous Laughter

“Wala, natawa lang po.”

Table 19. Presentation, Interpretation, and Analysis

Referencing to Table 19. Presentation, Interpretation,
and Analysis, The verbatim responses in the first section
indicate signs of aggression. The speaker expresses
annoyance, irritability, and a quick temper. They
mention that they get easily angered, although not
through physical means. This suggests that their anger is
predominantly expressed through words and private
interactions.
The second section focuses on anger management. The
verbatim responses suggest that the speaker gets angry

17
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON

primarily in specific situations, such as family matters,
stress, or time mismanagement. They also mention the
importance of considering what is important before
getting angry, indicating a level of self-awareness and
control.
The concept of agitation emerges in the third section.
The speaker expresses restlessness and a desire to be
alone, possibly to avoid reacting angrily towards others.
They also inquire about someone's whereabouts,
indicating their unsettled state of mind.
The verbatim responses in the fourth section suggest a
denial of being an easily angered person. The speaker
claims not to be someone who gets angry easily,
mentioning confusion and slight jealousy as occasional
emotions. They also attribute any signs of stress to their
tendency to become irritated.
The concept of trauma response is evident in the fifth
section. The speaker exhibits a defensive response to
anger, wanting to isolate themselves to avoid negatively
affecting others. The statement "No, don't touch me"
suggests a heightened sensitivity and a need for
personal space during moments of anger.
The verbatim responses in the last section revolve
around nervous laughter. The speaker mentions
laughing in the context of jealousy. This could indicate a
coping mechanism or a way to mask or diffuse their
feelings of jealousy, possibly due to discomfort or
anxiety associated with expressing anger openly.
Overall, the verbatim responses provided as shown in
Table 17. Presentation, Interpretation, and Analysis,
demonstrate various facets of jealousy, including signs
of aggression, anger management techniques, agitation,
denial, trauma response, and nervous laughter. These
different themes and concepts shed light on the
complexity and diversity of how individuals experience
and express anger.which turns into jealousy.

Reaction

Physical Manifestation Concept Theme

Placing hand on forehead

Bowing of head Fidgeting in Discomfort

Playing with fingers

Scratching head

Tapping of fingers

Rubbing fist Fidgeting in Irritation

Scratching head

Smiling
Pacifying Behavior
Chuckling Signs of Amusement

Laughing

Covering face of amusement

Ears turning red

Brows knitted together Signs of Discomfort on Facial

Features
Sad eyes

18
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON
Cannot make eye contact
Table 20. Reaction
As reference to Table 20. Reaction, in the first physical
manifestation, the participant exhibits physical
manifestations such as placing their hand on their
forehead, bowing their head, playing with their fingers,
and scratching their head. The physical manifestations
observed suggest a fidgeting behavior in response to
discomfort. Placing the hand on the forehead and
bowing the head may indicate a desire to shield oneself
or hide from the situation. Playing with fingers and
scratching the head can be seen as pacifying behaviors,
attempts to release tension or redirect nervous energy.
The participant's reaction indicates a level of discomfort
and unease in response to the flirting scenario. The
fidgeting behaviors serve as a self-soothing mechanism
to cope with the challenging emotions triggered by the
situation.
The participants in the second physical manifestation,
taps their fingers, rubs their fist, and scratches their
head. The observed physical manifestations suggest
fidgeting in irritation. Tapping fingers and rubbing the
fist can indicate impatience or frustration. Scratching
the head may be a subconscious response to relieve
stress or as a pacifying behavior. The participants'
reaction suggests growing irritation and frustration as
the flirting continues. The fidgeting behaviors can be
interpreted as attempts to manage or pacify these
negative emotions.
In the third physical manifestation,, the participant
displays physical manifestations such as smiling,
chuckling, laughing, and covering their face out of
amusement. The physical manifestations observed
indicate signs of amusement. Smiling, chuckling, and
laughing are typical expressions of finding something
funny or entertaining. Covering the face can be a natural
reaction when experiencing uncontrollable laughter or a
Discussions
Romantic relationships, whether established or
emerging, profoundly impact our lives by providing
love, companionship, and a profound sense of
connection. It is something that is considered to be a
part of everyone’s lives— one way or another, as it is
way to regulate the display of emotions. The
participants' reaction suggests that they find the flirting
scenario amusing. Despite the potential trigger of
aggression, the participant responds with amusement,
possibly indicating a sense of disbelief or finding the
situation too absurd to provoke anger.
The participants' physical manifestations in the fourth
section include ears turning red, brows knitted together,
sad eyes, and an inability to make eye contact. The
observed physical manifestations focus on the facial
features, indicating signs of discomfort. Ears turning red
can be a physiological response to heightened emotions.
Brows knitted together and sad eyes suggest a furrowed
brow and a downcast expression, reflecting sadness or
distress. The inability to make eye contact may indicate
avoidance or unease. The participant's reaction suggests
significant discomfort and emotional distress in
response to the flirting scenario. The physical
manifestations on the face reflect inner turmoil and an
attempt to manage or suppress negative emotions. The
participant's inability to make eye contact further
reinforces their discomfort and possibly a desire to
withdraw from the situation.
Overall, the reactions observed in the participants'
physical manifestations provide insights into their
emotional responses to the social experiment. These
reactions reflect varying degrees of discomfort,
irritation, amusement, and distress. The concept of
pacifying behavior emerges as participants engage in
fidgeting, attempts to manage emotions, or regulate
their responses. These physical manifestations offer
valuable information about individual coping
mechanisms and emotional reactions in challenging
situations.
denoted to be a tradition. A lot of people’s dreams in
life are to extinguish or cull their loneliness through the
means of a romantic partner they can bond with.
Emerging relationships are particularly exciting as two
individuals embark on a journey of discovery, facing
challenges, learning to communicate, and building trust.
It can be seen as a form of adventure for the blossoming
19
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON
couple as they would naturally be excited to try new
things in their life, feeling the honeymoon phase.
However, it is also important to acknowledge the fact
relationships can change even in what seems to be a
blink of an eye. There are a lot of factors to make an
emerging relationship long lasting— such as stability,
understanding, patience and kindness. It doesn’t require
the effort of only one but the two people in a
relationship to make it work, especially for emerging
ones. This research topic details personality types A and
B, bringing forth the fact that personalities factor in the
long term stability of an emerging relationship. The
study conducted by (Weidmann, Ledermann, & Grob,
2017) through the usage of the five-factor model of
personality revealed that satisfaction is correlated with
agreeableness— which can be attributed to similarity.
Through similarity, comes a stronger bond and
connectivity level. According to Galovan's satisfaction
and connectivity, rooting relationship quality in
satisfaction has also led to a focus on relationship
processes such as communication, conflict, and similar
behaviors as correlates of a “good” relationship (cited
from Johnson, 1986 by Galovan, et al. 2021) The
concept of satisfaction and conformity can cause
conflicts and make good contributions to the length of
years and relationship quality on a daily basis (Galovan
et al., 2021).
Gender and Aggression
Traditional roles are often also seen in relationships—
especially for emerging relationships, where the male or
male identifying figure is often attributed to be the
aggressive one. Bandura emphasizes the significance of
the social labeling process, wherein social judgments
play a crucial role in determining which injurious or
destructive acts are categorized as aggressive (Bandura,
1973, p. 3, as cited in Özçelik & Dilek, 2017).
Gender has been extensively examined as a variable in
studies investigating romantic relationships. It is widely
recognized that many societal differences between men
and women stem from gender roles (Winstead &
Derlaga, 1993, as cited in Gündoğdu et al., 2018). It is
shown based on the data collected in the pre-test that
females tend to have slightly higher mean scores than
males in Physical Aggression, Verbal Aggression, and
Hostility, while males have a slightly higher mean score
in Anger. Women commonly exhibit higher prevalence
of indirect forms of aggression, such as spreading
rumors, compared to other forms of aggression. When
examining behavior in controlled laboratory settings,
women generally display lower levels of aggression
compared to men. However, this discrepancy diminishes
when individuals, including women, are provoked or
subjected to provocation (Denson et al., 2018). In
real-life situations, women demonstrate a similar
likelihood of engaging in aggression towards their
romantic partners compared to men as shown in the
data. However, a change is observed in the post-test. In
terms of specific aggression factors, males tend to have
higher mean scores than females in Physical
Aggression, Verbal Aggression, and Hostility, while
females have a slightly lower mean score in Verbal
Aggression and Hostility. Within the societal framework
of Turkey, which adheres to patriarchal norms, there is a
prevailing pattern where boys are frequently urged to
demonstrate traits of bravery, assertiveness, and
confidence as a manifestation of their masculinity.
Conversely, girls are typically socialized to be meek,
reserved, and submissive. This cultural backdrop
effectively promotes and strengthens aggressive conduct
in boys, associating it with masculine identity, while
girls encounter more severe social repercussions when
they exhibit aggression (Gündoğdu et al., 2018).
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
In this case, utilizing psychotherapy known as
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy can be a good way to
break out of toxic social norms and be able to identify
and change unhelpful or problematic thought patterns
that negatively affect their behavior and emotions
(Gupta, 2021). There are naturally troubling mindsets
that can arise from the traditional values imposed by
society or childhood trauma. Self discovery and
discovery of each other’s individual selves are also two
keys in allowing for a long term stable relationship—
both of which can be provided by this form of
treatment. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is used to treat
many different ailments, such as addiction, problems
with aggression, bipolar disorder, personality disorders,
depression, panic attacks, and phobias (Gupta, 2021).
Limitations and Future Directions
The current research on the interactive influence of
gender and personality type on aggression levels in
emerging romantic relationships has identified several
limitations that should be acknowledged.
Firstly, the study was constrained by a limited time
frame, which may have affected the depth and
comprehensiveness of the investigation. This limitation
highlights the need for future research to allocate
sufficient time for data collection and analysis, allowing
for a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.
Another limitation of the study was the restriction on
participant selection. Only individuals who had
significant others studying in the same school were
allowed to participate, resulting in a relatively small
sample size. This limited sample may not adequately
represent the diversity of romantic relationships,
potentially compromising the generalizability of the
findings. Future research should aim to include a more
diverse range of participants from various backgrounds
20
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON
and relationship contexts to enhance the external
validity of the study.
Furthermore, the focus of the study on emerging
romantic relationships may have overlooked important
dynamics present in more established relationships.
Aggression levels and its underlying factors might differ
between emerging relationships and those that have
stood the test of time. Therefore, future research should
consider including participants in relationships of
varying lengths to explore potential differences in
aggression levels and the influence of gender and
personality type. The utilization of the available
facilities within the researchers' university was another
limitation. The experimental conditions and the
participants' behavior might have been influenced by the
limitations of these facilities. It is recommended for
future studies to secure a more suitable, well-equipped
facility that provides a quieter and more isolated
environment. This would ensure that the social
experiment, such as observing confederates engaging in
flirtatious behavior in front of participants, is conducted
in a controlled setting that accurately reflects real-life
situations.
The study focused exclusively on personality types A
and B, neglecting other relevant personality traits that
could contribute to aggression. Exploring a broader
range of personality types and their associations with
aggression would provide a more comprehensive
understanding of the topic. Future research should aim
to investigate other personality traits and their potential
influence on aggression levels in romantic relationships.
Additionally, the study heavily relied on Bandura's
Social Theory as the sole framework to explain the
relationship between gender, personality type, and
aggression. Considering alternative theoretical
perspectives, such as attachment theory or social
exchange theory, would provide a more holistic view of
the complex dynamics involved. Future research should
explore and incorporate a variety of theories to enrich
the understanding of aggression in romantic
relationships. Lastly, the limited availability of
up-to-date literature was a significant challenge. Access
to certain journals or publications was restricted, which
might have hindered the inclusion of recent research
findings. Future studies should make efforts to access a
wider range of up-to-date literature from accessible
sources, ensuring the incorporation of the latest
advancements in the field.
In light of these limitations, several future directions
can be suggested. Firstly, expanding the sample size to
include a larger number of participants would enhance
the diversity and representation of the study.
Additionally, including participants in relationships of
various lengths would provide insights into how
aggression levels may differ across different stages of a
romantic relationship. Moreover, securing a more
suitable and well-equipped facility for future
experiments is recommended. This would create a
controlled environment that accurately simulates
real-life situations and mitigates potential biases arising
from the experimental setting. Furthermore, exploring
other personality types beyond types A and B would
enrich the understanding of the role of personality in
aggression within romantic relationships. Incorporating
alternative theoretical perspectives would provide a
more comprehensive and nuanced analysis of the
interplay between gender, personality, and aggression.
Finally, making an effort to access a broader range of
up-to-date literature from accessible sources is crucial
for staying abreast of the latest research findings and
advancements in the field. By addressing these
limitations and pursuing these future directions,
researchers can further advance our understanding of
the interactive influence of gender and personality type
on aggression levels in emerging romantic relationships.
Summary
Emerging romantic relationships have the potential to
flourish into a lifelong relationship with commitment,
passion, and understanding between partners. Like any
other starting point, the beginning is the most
challenging in relationships. Although there is more
excitement within emerging romantic relationships,
there are hurdles to encounter that may severe the
relationship and cut it short. Challenges that arise such
as individual differences, unrealistic expectations, and
external stressors may affect relationships even in the
long run. The root of this stems from the individual
themselves which includes their ability to manage
feelings of aggression. As stated by Albert Bandura,
aggression or aggressive behavior is based on the
learned aggression from social learning. This emerges
from hostile phenomena that occur in real-life situations
aside from romantic relationships. Within romantic
relationships, differences and expectations may come
from gender and personality. A male may have different
expectations with relationships from a female and vice
versa and the differences in their personality may lead
to aggression. To an extent, this study found that men
have higher aggression levels compared to women, with
women showing higher hostility. Which provides
consistency from the previous studies as men are more
expressive with their aggression while women are
known to feel aggression internally. However, results
show that personality type does not necessarily affect
aggression levels as most of the participants are type
A/B. These findings may be beneficial to improve
romantic relationships as part of the Cognitive
Behavioral Therapy.
21
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON
References
Allen, J.P., Narr, R.K., Kansky, J., Szwedo, D.E.,
(2020). Adolescent Peer Relationship Qualities as
Predictors of Long-term Romantic Life Satisfaction.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC665662
0/
Amato, P. R., & Previti, D. (2017). People's reasons for
divorcing: Gender, social class, the life course, and
adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 38(12),
1642-1669. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X03254507
Archer, J. (2018). Sex differences in aggression in
real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of
General Psychology, 22(1), 61-71.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.8.4.291
Arnett, J. J. (2017). Emerging adulthood: The winding
road from the late teens through the twenties. Oxford
University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199929382.001.
0001
Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2018). Being
committed and agentic: Implications for understanding
aggression in romantic relationships. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 33(1), 3-29.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201279011
Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. (2018).
Research on the nature and determinants of marital
satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 80(1), 101-121.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00964.x
Brennan, G. M. (2019). A study of Type A and Type B
personality and burnout in nurses.
https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.kw53-zb4t
Campbell, L., & Stanton, S. CE., (2019). Adult
attachment and trust in romantic relationships.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.08.004
Cherry, K. (2022). Cognitive behavioral therapy.
Verywell Mind.
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-cognitive-behav
ior-therapy-2795747
Dahar, M. A., Laatif, A., & Yousuf, M. I. (2019).
Influence of Type A and Type B Personality on
Academic Achievement of University Students. Global
Social Sciences Review, 4, 80–87.
https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2019(iv-ii).11
Davila, J., Steinberg, S. J., Kachadourian, L., Cobb, R.
J., & Fincham, F. D. (2018). Romantic involvement and
depressive symptoms in early and late adolescence: The
role of a preoccupied relational style. Personal
Relationships, 25(3), 377-389.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00076.x
Denson, T. F., O’Dean, S. M., Blake, K. R., & Beames,
J. R. (2018). Aggression in Women: Behavior, Brain
and Hormones. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience,
12 (81). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00081
Galovan, A. M., Carroll, J. S., Schramm, D. G.,
Leonhardt, N. D., Zuluaga, J., McKenadel, S. E. M., &
Oleksuik, M. R. (2021). Satisfaction or connectivity?:
Implications from the strong relationality model of
flourishing couple relationships. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 48(3), 883–907.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12559
Galovan, A. M., Orbuch, T. L., Shrout, M. R., Drebit,
E., & Rice, T. M. (2022). Taking stock of the
longitudinal study of romantic couple relationships: The
last 20 years. Personal Relationships.
https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12452
Gerlach, T. M., Driebe, J. C., & Reinhard, S. K. (2018).
Personality and Romantic Relationship Satisfaction.
Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences,
1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_718-1
Gündoğdu, R., Yavuzer, Y., & Karataş, Z. (2018).
Irrational Beliefs in Romantic Relationships as the
Predictor of Aggression in Emerging Adulthood.
Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(3), 108.
https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i3.2884
Gupta, S. (2021). What is couples therapy? Verywell
Mind.
https://www.verywellmind.com/couples-therapy-definiti
on-types-techniques-and-efficacy-5191137
Lorber, M. F., Mitnick, D. M., Tiberio, S. S., Heyman,
R. E., Slep, A. M. S., Trindade, S., Damewood, G. N.,
& Bruzzese, J. (2023). Demand‐avoid‐withdraw
processes in adolescent dating aggression. Aggressive
Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.22070
McLeod, S. (2023). Type A And Type B Personality
Theory. Retrieved from simplypsychology.org:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/personality-a.html
Munusamy, S., Jeyagobi, S., Mohamed, I. N., Murthy, J.
K., Chong, S. T., Abdullah, H., & Kamaluddin, M. R.
(2022). Underlying Familial Factors for Aggressive
Behavior in Romantic Relationships: A Systematic
Review. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 19(8), 4485.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084485
Ofojebe, C. P., Okoli, P. C., & Okpala, M. O. (2019).
The role of gender and personality (Type “A” and “B”);
on emotional stressful experience. Annals of Alzheimer’s
and Dementia Care, 3(1), pp. 11–19.
https://doi.org/10.17352/aadc.000008
Özçelik, Ö., & Dilek, A. (2017). Explanation and
Understanding of Human Aggression: Freudian
Psychoanalytical Analysis, Fromm’s Neo-Freudian
Perspective and Bandura’s Social Learning Theory.
International Journal of Social Science and Economic
Research, Vol. 2, Pp. 2151-2164.
https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-Fromm/frontdoor/index/ind
ex/docId/36629
22
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON

Raypole, C. (2021). Type A Personality Traits: Weidmann, R., Ledermann, T., & Grob, A. (2017). Big
Overview, Comparison to Type B, and More. Five traits and relationship satisfaction: The mediating
Healthline. role of self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality,
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-a-type-a-pers 69, 102–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.001
onality
Sissons, B. (2022). What is the difference between type
A and type B personalities? Retrieved from
medicalnewstoday.com:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/type-a-vs-t
ype-b
Vagi, K. J., Rothman, E. F., Latzman, N. E., Tharp, A.
T., Hall, D. M., & Breiding, M. J. (2017). Beyond
correlates: A review of risk and protective factors for
adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 46(1), 180-194.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9907-7

23
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON

Appendices

THE AGGRESSION QUESTIONNAIRE

Rate each of the following items in terms of how characteristic they are of you. Use the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5
Extremely Extremely
uncharacteristic of me characteristic of me

Aggression Factor I
_____ 1. Once in a while, I can’t control the urge to strike another person.
_____ 2. Given enough provocation, I may hit another person.
_____ 3. If someone hits me, I hit back.
_____ 4. I get into fights a little more than the average person.
_____ 5. If I have to resort to violence to protect my rights, I will.
_____ 6. There are people who pushed me so far that we came to blows.
_____ 7. I can think of no good reason for ever hitting a person.*
_____ 8. I have threatened people I know.
_____ 9. I have become so mad that I have broken things.
_____ Total (*Reverse rating 1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 = 3. 4 = 2, 5 = 1)

Aggression Factor II
_____ 1. I tell my friends openly when I disagree with them.
_____ 2. I often find myself disagreeing with people.
_____ 3. When people annoy me, I may tell them what I think of them.
_____ 4. I can’t help getting into arguments when people disagree with me.
_____ 5. My friends say that I’m somewhat argumentative.
_____ Total

Rate each of the following items in terms of how characteristic they are of you. Use the
following scale:

12345
Extremely Extremely
uncharacteristic characteristic of me

Aggression Factor III

_____ 1. I flare up quickly but get over it quickly.
_____ 2. When frustrated, I let my irritation show.
_____ 3. I sometimes feel like a powder keg ready to explode.
_____ 4. I am an even-tempered person.*
_____ 5. Some of my friends think I’m a hothead.
_____ 6. Sometimes I fly off the handle for no good reason.
_____ 7. I have trouble controlling my temper.
_____ Total (*Reverse rating 1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 = 3. 4 = 2, 5 = 1)

Aggression Factor IV
_____ 1. I am sometimes eaten up with jealousy.
_____ 2. At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life.
_____ 3. Other people always seem to get the breaks.
_____ 4. I wonder why sometimes I feel so bitter about things.
_____ 5. I know that “friends” talk about me behind my back.
_____ 6. I am suspicious of overly friendly strangers.
_____ 7. I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back.

24
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON

_____ 8. When people are especially nice, I wonder what they want.
_____ Total

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

25
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON

Stress Management A/B Personality Questionnaire

The following questionnaire is designed to give you an idea of your own behavioral type. Read each statement
carefully and then circle the number corresponding to the category of behavior that best fits you. (1 = Never; 2 =
Seldom; 3 = Sometimes; 4 = Usually; 5 = Always) When you finish, add up all the circled numbers.

1. I become angry or irritated whenever I have to stand in 12345

a queue for more than 15 minutes

2. I handle more than one problem at a time 12345

3. It's hard finding the time to relax during the day 12345

4. I become irritated or annoyed when someone is

talking too slowly 12345

5. I try hard to win at sports or games 12345

6. When I lose at sports or games, I get angry at myself

or others 12345

7. I have trouble doing special things for myself 12345

8. I work better under pressure or when meeting deadlines 12345

9. I find myself looking at my watch whenever I'm sitting

around or not doing something active 12345

10. I bring work home with me 12345

11. I feel energized and exhilarated after being in a pressure

situation 12345

12. I feel like I need to take charge of a group in order to

get things moving 12345

13. I find myself eating rapidly in order to get back to work 12345

14. I do things quickly regardless of whether I have time

or not 12345

15. I interrupt what people are saying when I think they're

wrong
12345
16. I'm inflexible and rigid when it comes to changes at work
and home 12345

17. I become anxious and need to move whenever I'm trying

to relax 12345

18. I find myself eating faster than the people I'm eating
with 12345

19. At work, I need to perform more than one task at a

time in order to feel productive 12345

26
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON

20. I take less holiday than entitled 12345

21. I find myself being very picky and looking at small

details 12345

22. I become annoyed at people who don't work as hard

as I do 12345

23. I find that there aren't enough things to do during the

day 12345

24. I spend a good deal of my time thinking about my work 12345

25. I get bored easily 12345

26. I'm active on weekends either working or doing projects 12345

27. I get into arguments with people who don't think my way 12345

28. I have trouble keeping calm whenever

problems arise 12345

29. I interrupt someone's conversation in order to speed

things up 12345

30. I take everything I do seriously 12345

Score 35‐74 = Type B

Score 75‐99 = Type A/B (combination)
Score 100‐150 = Type A

27
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON
Naturalistic Observation
Participant Pre-test Treatment
Alpha While answering the When the researchers
questionnaire, Alpha were informing Alpha of
was rather fast at his result regarding his
answering. This shows personality type, he
that he knows himself immediately said
to be certain of his “Parang alam ko na
answers. After ‘yung sa aggression ko
finishing, he kasi galitin talaga ako’ng
approached the tao eh…”
researchers and said
“Ano ba ‘yang
questions n’yo, Ate…
Naiinis ako, pampikon During the treatment,
talaga.” Indicating that Alpha fidgets and keeps
he is easily angered placing his hand on his
even while answering forehead a lot. Although
the questionnaires. he was chuckling as he
witnessed the social
experiment, his ears were
slightly turning red. As
the social experiment
continues, he would also
bow his head down as if
waiting for it to be over.
Post-test
As the researchers
handed the same
aggression questionnaire
to him regarding what he
feels at the moment, his
behavior of having his
hand on his forehead and
fidgeting remains the
same from the treatment.
During the debriefing,
when the researchers
revealed that it was just
a social experiment, he
bowed his head for a
moment before looking
forward while keeping a
grin. When he was asked
about what he felt during
the experiment, he
indicated that he knew it
was research so it was to
be expected. However,
he admitted that if he
were to see it every day
and with a person he
knew, he would’ve
thrown the chair right at
them.
28
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON

Bravo The partner of Bravo When Bravo was being When she was handed
was with her while informed of her the same aggression
answering the personality type result, questionnaire regarding
questionnaires. They she was rather calm and what she feels at the
were holding hands revealed that she is not moment, she remained
while discussing the easily angered in composed.
questions. This shows relationships, but angered
that Bravo has an on matters such as family.
intimate relationship
with her partner to the During the debriefing,
point of trust and she reveals that she was
adoration. During the treatment, worried at first when she
Bravo was watching the saw her partner suddenly
social experiment calmly come up with another
with a smile. However, girl, but she shows
there was a glint of confidence with herself
sadness in her eyes. as she regarded the
confederate with “Hindi
ako kinabahan kasi
noong nakita ko na
Outside with the ‘yung babae, naisip ko
confederate, the partner na ah… Hindi n’ya
was rather uneasy and type.”
kept saying “Naaawa ako
sa kan’ya…”

29
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON
Charlie Charlie took his time When the researchers are
while answering the informing Charlie about
questionnaires, which his personality type result,
roughly took 20 he keeps a shy smile and
minutes. This is due to agrees with it. He
him answering it while confirms that he rarely
his partner was feeding feels anger or aggression.
him food. Regarding
their behavior with each
other, they seem to be
in an intimate During the treatment,
relationship to the point Charlie was smiling and
of adoration. containing his laugh while
looking intensely at his
partner. He was rubbing
the fist of his hand as a
sign of unease instead of
aggression. When the
social experiment was
done, he gave a nod to his
partner while keeping a
smile.
He answered the same
aggression questionnaire
faster compared to how
he answered during the
pre-test. This shows that
he is more certain of his
feelings at the moment.
When the partner was
asked to sit with him
during the debriefing, he
jokingly turned his body
away from her and
quietly said “No, don’t
touch me.” with a pout.
He listened to the
debriefing without any
questions while looking
rather dejected. When he
was asked about what he
felt, he admitted to feel a
little jealous. After they
were given food, his
partner showed concern
for him as she quietly
asks “Okay ka lang?”
which confirms he is
inherently soft as a
person to feel
aggression.
30
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON

Delta While answering the When she was being When she was handed
questionnaires, Delta informed about her the same aggression
had asked the personality type result, questionnaire to answer
researchers regarding she was giving the regarding how she feels
the questions within the impression of being at the moment, she
questionnaire to be educated while agreeing emphasized “’Yung
sure. She even debated with the result. She said nararamdaman ko
the questions with her that she does not feel ngayon?” with her eyes
partner which rather aggression quite easily, looking wider at the
ended with them having but it is present. researcher, expressing
a little argument. anger in it. After that,
she expressed “Parang
gusto ko na lang maging
During the treatment, she pader…” when the
initially looked confused researcher moved away
with the social from her.
experiment. But after a
while, she was beginning
to contain her laughter
while shaking her head During the debriefing,
slowly with her hand on she kept saying she felt
her head. However, she no anger and jealousy.
was intently looking at However, her behavior
her partner and the contradicts her claims.
confederate together. She was struggling to
explain how she felt
during the social
experiment as she seems
to be trying to prove the
point of her feelings.
When she was asked to
shake hands with the
confederate for the
formality of holding no
malice against each
other, she refused
“jokingly”. But she
never shook hands with
the confederate and only
looked at the confederate
while nodding.

31
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON

Echo While answering the When the researchers When he was given the
questionnaires, Echo revealed his personality aggression
was taking his time. type, he agreed with the questionnaire, he took
When asked, he said result while saying “’Yon and returned it politely.
that he felt as if he was pala ‘yon…” He further He answered the
self-reflecting as he explains to the researcher questionnaire quicker.
finally realized some that he does not really
things about himself. express his aggression
publicly, but would rather
do so in private. During the debriefing,
he revealed that he was
rather confused and
jealous at first. But as
During the treatment, he time went on, he started
kept his head straight to to have a gist of the
the social experiment situation and began to
without any additional laugh. Regarding his
movements. He was aggression levels, he
watching his partner with said he was more
the confederate seriously outspoken than he is
as if he was assessing the physically aggressive.
situation. For 1 minute, he He showed that he was
had a serious face. on good terms with the
However, he began to confederate and the
show a little smile during whole situation.
the end.

32
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON
Foxtrot She was rather quick When the researcher was
while answering the informing her about her
questionnaire as she personality type, she
admitted that she was showed great interest
rather looking forward regarding it while
to the result. When agreeing with the result.
asked, she said she was She reveals that she is not
rather quick because easily angered, but instead
she was just being stressed. A notable
honest with herself. behavior about her is that
she can maintain eye
contact without wavering.
Before the social
experiment, she kept
asking if she could stand
up and asked her partner
“Paano siya? D’yan lang
ba siya?” as if she was
restless of what is about to
happen. Although she can
maintain eye contact,
during the treatment, there
were a lot of times where
she cannot look at the
scene in front of her. She
was chuckling, but when
the confederate begins to
touch her partner, she
turns her attention to the
desk.
When she was
answering the same
aggression
questionnaire, she had
her brows knitted
together as if she was
really thinking about the
questions and reflecting
about what she feels at
the moment.
During the debriefing,
she was calmly listening
to the researchers with a
smile and only answers
when asked. When
asked about what she
felt, she said that she did
not feel that aggressive.
From her behavior
during the experiment,
she may have felt
discomfort and jealousy.
33
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON
Golf He took his time while When Golf was being
answering the informed about his
questionnaires. When personality type result, he
asked about what his kept a mischievous smile
thoughts were, he said while fidgeting his hands
that he thought about a lot. He stated that he is
the questions too much not the type to be easily
and tried to relate to angered or feel
each of it to determine aggression.
his answers.
During the treatment, he
kept laughing while
making extra movements
such as a little clap and
slightly bobbing his head.
However, he avoids
looking at the scene in
front of him. Once the
social experiment was
done, he has his palm
under his chin while
keeping a smile that is
about to burst from
laughing.
Similar to how he
answered the pre-test, he
took his time while
answering the same
aggression questionnaire
while spinning his pen.
During the debriefing,
when the researchers
revealed that it was just
a social experiment, he
kept his laugh while
nodding. However, when
he was asked about what
he felt when he
witnessed it, he shared
that instead of feeling
aggression, he felt
uncomfortable. Even up
to when they were being
given food, he kept his
smile while rubbing his
partner’s back.
34
 LANUZA, FRANCO, ISALOS, & LACSON
Hotel While answering the When she was informed
questionnaires, Hotel is about her personality
taking her time while type, she looked nervous
stealing glances from while her hand was
our side. When she was slightly shaking. She was
asked about her easily distracted as she
thoughts, she admitted kept looking in other
that she took a long directions where she
time answering it could hear a slight door
because she wanted her opening or people looking
answers to be true to through the room. Along
her. with this, she answers
slowly when being asked
as she seems to want to
answer well.
During the treatment, she
was chuckling at the
scene in front of her. She
places her hand in front of
her face while keeping her
laugh as if suffering from
second-hand
embarrassment. Although
she was easily distracted
before the social
experiment, she kept her
attention focused on her
partner and the
confederate.
When she was handed
the same aggression
questionnaire, she kept
moving her pen while
answering. Her want to
answer carefully is
consistent.
During the debriefing,
she looked nervous
when the researchers
revealed her aggression
questionnaire result.
However, it seems that
she looks nervous every
time she is being
regarded because she
wants to listen
attentively. She shares
that she does not feel
anger quite easily and
that she found it rather
funny.
35