Search results

The societal, economic and personal costs of aggression are indisputable. Impulsivity and childhood trauma (CT) play a role in aggression but less is known about the potential mechanisms underlying these associations. This study aimed to investigate the influence of CTs and impulsivity on aggression in the general population.

A total of 178 participants (aged 18–86, M = 30.93, SD = 14.50) including 65 men (36.5%), 110 women (61.8%), 3 participants self-identified (1.7%)(n = 2 nonbinary, n = 1 gender fluid) of the UK adult population completed an online survey. Questionnaires measured impulsivity (Short UPPS-P), adverse childhood experiences (CT Questionnaire) and aggression (Buss and Perry Aggression Questionnaire).

Emotional neglect and abuse were the most endorsed CTs (abuse and neglect). As predicted, results showed the impulsivity facet “negative urgency” was associated with the behaviour, emotions and cognitions of aggression. Findings showed a distinct effect of both impulsivity and emotional abuse on physical aggression, which may reflect a pathway in which impulsivity influences adverse childhood experiences and future violence. Types of aggression may have potentially distinct pathways. This study discusses the reasons for these observed results and future research.

The originality/value of the paper lies in the acknowledgement of the role of negative and positive urgency in behaviours related to emotional dysregulation. It also highlighted the importance of examining different types of aggression. There was a distinct effect of both impulsivity and CTs on physical aggression and hostility. Further research in larger samples should examine pathways in which impulsivity mediates the effects of adverse childhood experiences and adulthood aggression. These collective insights can help further our understanding of the role adverse and traumatic events in childhood and impulsivity has on aggression and may be relevant to tailored support and intervention strategies for individuals expressing aggressive behaviours.

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether a unified understanding of materiality is possible, given that conceptual pluralism represents a key characteristic of materiality approaches in sustainability reporting.

This paper systematically reviews and examines materiality conceptualizations in sustainability disclosure research and practice, utilizing Gallie’s (1956) analytical framework of essentially contested concepts. The framework enables the separation of conceptual confusion from essential contestation. Whereas reaching conceptual consensus is possible in the former, the hurdles to conceptual agreement are insurmountable in the latter.

This paper reveals that the prevailing lack of consensus surrounding materiality is grounded in its essential contestation, not in conceptual confusion. This robustly supports the projection of conceptual plurality as materiality’s most probable future.

Building on the materiality concept’s essentially contested nature, this paper calls for future research that explicitly embraces the concept’s plural character and more interdisciplinary research.

As a unified understanding of materiality is unlikely to evolve, standard-setters should provide a clear definition of the underlying materiality concept, offer specific guidance on materiality assessment and issue joint documents that detail the similarities, differences and interconnections between their respective materiality frameworks.

Projecting plurality as materiality’s most probable future underscores the importance of users of sustainability reports understanding the materiality concept applied by the reporting entity and the respective consequences for identifying material sustainability issues.

From this paper’s novel insight that materiality is an essentially contested concept, this paper derives two overarching future research directions and offers a broad set of exemplary research questions.