Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

http://psp.sagepub.
com
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
DOI: 10.1177/0146167204264764
2004; 30; 856 Pers Soc Psychol Bull
Brian P. Meier and Michael D. Robinson
Anger
Does Quick to Blame Mean Quick to Anger? The Role of Agreeableness in Dissociating Blame and
http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/7/856
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
can be found at: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Additional services and information for
http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://psp.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/30/7/856
SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
(this article cites 21 articles hosted on the Citations
2004 Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
by Constantin Ticu on November 30, 2007 http://psp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
10.1177/0146167204264764 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN Meier, Robinson / AGREEABLENESS, BLAME, AND ANGER
Does Quick to Blame Mean Quick to Anger?
The Role of Agreeableness
in Dissociating Blame and Anger
Brian P. Meier
Michael D. Robinson
North Dakota State University
Two studies investigated agreeableness, the accessibility of
blame, and their potential interactive effects on anger. To mea-
sure the chronic accessibility of blame, a choice reaction time task
was created that required participants to classify words as blame-
worthy or not. It was found that for individuals low in agree-
ableness, blame accessibility was positively related to anger and
arguments during the course of daily life, hostile feelings during
the course of a semester, and anger in response to a short video
involving a blameworthy action. This same straightforward
relationship between the accessibility of blame and anger did not
characterize those high in agreeableness. The results suggest that
agreeableness plays an important role in facilitating (low agree-
ableness) or inhibiting (high agreeableness) the link between
accessible blame and anger.
Keywords: aggressive thoughts; anger; aggressive behavior; accessi-
bility; agreeableness; blame
Anger is an emotion that has received considerable
attention from both emotion researchers, on one hand,
and personality and social psychologists, on the other.
One reason that anger has garnered such attention is
that it is often a precursor to aggressive behavior. Anum-
ber of variables have been shown to predict the likeli-
hood of anger. These variables include trait hostility
(Bushman, 1995; Lindsay &Anderson, 2000), aggressive
cues suchas violent movies (Anderson, 1997), and physi-
ological arousal (Zillmann, 1983).
According to recent associationistic perspectives
(Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Berkowitz, 1993), one
variablethe accessibility of antisocial thoughtsmight
play a key role in mediating many of the personality
and situational influences on anger and aggression.
Accessibility refers to the preactivation level of a concept
(Bruner, 1957; Kelly, 1963). A concept that is pre-
activated is ready for use, given the right stimulus input
conditions.
Accessibility is a function of both situational triggers
(e.g., the presence of guns; Anderson, Benjamin, &
Bartholow, 1998) and chronic use (Higgins, 1996).
According to the latter account, individuals differ in
their habitual use of certain concepts (e.g., blameworthy
actions), which may cause differences in the perception
and interpretation of concept-relevant stimuli (Kelly,
1963; Robinson, inpress). Frequent use of a concept ren-
ders it more likely that the concept will be used in the
future. For a soldier, for example, a rifle is likely to be
interpreted as a weapon rather than a piece of sporting
equipment (e.g., for hunting).
In relation to anger and aggression, recent research
has in fact shown that the situational variables (e.g.,
a weapon) that increase aggression also increase the
accessibility of antagonistic thoughts (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002). The parallels involving situational
influences on behavior and on the accessibility of antag-
onistic thoughts suggest that thoughts related to blam-
ing, hurting, or otherwise punishing other individuals
play a plausible role in mediating the impact of situa-
856
Authors Note: The research in this article was supported by a disserta-
tion fellowship (Meier) from North Dakota EPSCoR (Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research/National Science Foun-
dation) and grant funding from the National Institute of Mental
Health (068241). Correspondence concerning this article can be di-
rected to Brian P. Meier, Department of Psychology, North Dakota
State University, Fargo, ND 58105; e-mail: brian.p.meier@ndsu.
nodak.edu.
PSPB, Vol. 30 No. 7, July 2004 856-867
DOI: 10.1177/0146167204264764
2004 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
tional variables on experience and behavior. That is,
aggression-related situational cues (e.g., the presence of
a weapon) may cause aggressive behavior precisely be-
cause these cues increase the accessibility of antagonistic
thoughts.
It is reasonable to conclude from existing research
that the accessibility of antagonistic thoughts is an
important, if not crucial, variable in understanding
anger and aggression. Although we are receptive to this
cognitive analysis, we do note at least one gap in the
account. No research that we know of has shown that
the accessibility of aggression-related thoughts acts as
an individual difference variable in predicting the likeli-
hood of anger and aggression. Specifically, it is some-
times suggested, but never consistently demonstrated,
that participants low in agreeableness or high in trait
aggression have chronically accessible thoughts related
to blaming, hurting, or otherwise punishing other indi-
viduals. Supposing for a moment that sucha relation was
found, we still have no proof that the accessibility of such
thoughts actually relates to anger and aggression in
everyday life. If the accessibility of antagonistic thoughts
in memory predicts the likelihood of anger and aggres-
sion, then variations in the accessibility of such thoughts
should correlate with anger and aggression (across indi-
viduals). The present studies are an initial attempt to
investigate the relationship between the accessibility of
blame-related thoughts, on one hand, and anger and
aggression on the other.
1
Blame, Anger, and Aggression
Many prominent theories assume that the accessibil-
ity of blame should relate to anger and aggression. For
example, Shaver (1985) suggests that the likelihood of
anger and aggression vary directly with the assignment
of blame. Alicke (2000) contends that negative events
create the need to identify and punish a blameworthy
individual. Weiners (1995) model suggests that assign-
ing personal responsibility for a harmful action leads to
blame and, subsequently, anger and aggression.
Blame is a judgment that involves multiple necessary
components. For example, Shaver (1985) suggests that
blame is only likely when there is a negative event in-
volved and personal responsibility is assigned. In the lat-
ter connection, a person might make the inference that
some situational factor (e.g., lack of sleep) might have
caused the negative event (e.g., insult) and thus refrain
from assigning responsibility to the actor. After deter-
mining that the other individual was responsible for the
behavior, the person perceiver must decide whether to
assign blame to the action. Within this model, that is,
assignments of blame are not the same thing as judg-
ments of personal responsibility. Assignments of blame
vary according to a number of factors such as perceived
legitimacy (e.g., was the insult legitimate?) and infer-
ences about intention (e.g., was the person trying to
insult me?).
Weiners (1995) model is similarly based on stages of
processing that begin with an attributional analysis. If an
observer determines that a person is responsible for a
given negative event, the observer then decides whether
the actionwas controllable. Besides the controllability of
the action, there are other augmenting and mitigating
factors as well. On balance, blame is more likely to be
assigned to negative events that have more extensive
consequences as well as those that are perceived as more
controllable by the actor. A related model of attribution
was recently offered by Alicke (2000).
Although these models of blame vary slightly, they do
have some common elements: a negative action is typi-
cally involved and the observer determines that another
person (vs. situational factors) played a larger role in the
occurrence of the action and takes some personal
umbrage. In the last respect, blame has a hot aspect
that attributions of responsibility alone do not have
(Shaver, 1985). All models suggest that anger and incli-
nations to punish the individual are likely outcomes of
blame. Of course, it is true that a person could have
thoughts related to hurting others without any anteced-
ent blame; however, the two often go hand in hand as
blame-relevant thoughts trigger concerns related to re-
taliation and punishment (Weiner, 1995).
Blame Categorization Tendencies
Kelly (1963) stated, One cannot call another person
a bastard without making bastardy a dimension of his
own life also (p. 133). In this sense, acts of categoriza-
tion represent not only attempts to understand events
but also cognitive habits that trap the person into fixed
ways of perceiving and reacting (Robinson, in press).
One could have benevolent categorization tendencies,
inwhichcase others would more likely be seen as friends
and allies. On the other hand, one could have malevo-
lent categorization tendencies, in which case others
would more likely be seen as enemies and competitors.
To investigate the idea that categorization tendencies
can inform us about personality (Kelly, 1963; Robinson,
in press), we sought a method that might be sensitive to
individual differences in category use. Because perfor-
mance on the lexical decision (as well as pronunciation)
task is heavily dependent on phonological and ortho-
graphic aspects of word perception, it is not a particu-
larly useful method for examining semantic aspects of
meaning analysis (Joordens & Becker, 1997).
Instead, we asked participants to categorize words as
either blameworthy or not. This direct approach to con-
struct accessibility forces participants torelate eachword
to the category (i.e., blame) of interest. Thus, we can be
Meier, Robinson / AGREEABLENESS, BLAME, AND ANGER 857
relatively sure that performance on the task measures
the accessibility of the construct in question (e.g.,
Chumbley, 1986). Prior results point to the viability of
this approach to accessible concepts (e.g., Robinson,
Sohlberg, Vargas, & Tamir, in press). An individual who
frequently assigns blame in everyday life should be rela-
tively fast at categorizing blameworthy words as com-
pared to an individual who does not frequently assign
blame in everyday life. On the basis of these consid-
erations, we thought it likely that speed to categorize
blame relevant objects (e.g., murder) would predict
anger and aggression in everyday life.
Inadditiontoexamining the consequences of accessi-
ble blame, we also sought to investigate the relationship
between agreeableness, accessible blame, and anger. In
this regard, we know that agreeable people experience
less anger, but we do not necessarily know why this is the
case. On one hand, it seems possible to us that agreeable
people would tend to avoid assigning blame to others,
resulting in a lower tendency toward anger and aggres-
sion. On the other hand, it seems possible to us that
agreeable people are more capable of inhibiting anger
given the same triggers (e.g., accessible blame) that
might activate anger in others. Related to the latter
point, Robinson (Robinson et al., in press; Robinson,
Vargas, &Crawford, 2003) has provided robust evidence
for the following points: (a) traits do not predict the
accessibility of trait-relevant concepts; however, (b) traits
moderate the relation between accessible concepts and
concept-relevant outcomes. In the present context,
these two points would suggest that (a) agreeableness
will not relate to the accessibility of blame; however, (b)
agreeableness will moderate the blame/anger relation-
ship. In the next section, we present relevant evidence
for these hypotheses.
Agreeableness
Agreeableness is one of the factors comprising the
five-factor model of personality. An individual high in
agreeableness describes himself or herself as warm and
friendly. On the other hand, an individual low in agree-
ableness describes himself or herself as cold andquarrel-
some. The tendency to be (or not to be) prosocial in
motivation and behavior appears to develop in late
childhood and is relatively stable into young adulthood
(Eisenberg et al., 2002).
Differences in behavior between individuals high and
lowinagreeableness typically occur withininterpersonal
contexts. Jenson-Campbell and Graziano (2001) con-
tend that agreeable individuals are motivated to achieve
prosocial goals while avoiding conflicts. If this is true,
thenthe same social exchange may be viewed differently
by an individual high versus low in agreeableness.
Whereas the individual high in agreeableness may focus
on shared goals rather than interpersonal disagree-
ments, the individual low in agreeableness may do the
opposite. Perhaps it is the focus on shared goals that pre-
vents agreeable persons from reacting with hostility
when they are experiencing negative affect or frustra-
tion with an interaction. In this connection, Ahadi and
Rothbart (1994) have suggested that agreeableness is
related to the regulation of frustration and anger. Simi-
larly, Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, and Hair (1996)
found that during interpersonal conflicts within the lab-
oratory, high(vs. low) agreeable individuals viewed their
interactions as less conflicted and rated their partner as
more positive and likable. Related specifically to the reg-
ulationof negative affect, Tobin, Graziano, Vanman, and
Tassinary (2000) found that agreeable individuals tried
harder than nonagreeable individuals to control their
negative emotions after viewing pictures that were nega-
tive in valence and high in arousal.
If agreeable individuals are able to regulate their
anger in the context of interpersonal conflicts, then it
may be that the association or connection between
blame-relevant thoughts and anger is disconnected
among highly agreeable individuals. That is, whereas
blame-relevant thoughts may prime anger and aggres-
sion among low agreeable individuals, the same
thoughts may not prime anger and aggression among
high agreeable individuals, perhaps because of the use
of anger-regulating strategies (e.g., the use of perspec-
tive taking) among the latter group. Under this account,
the likelihood of anger and aggression would vary inter-
actively withagreeableness andthe accessibility of blame
such that the angriest individuals are high in accessible
blame and low in agreeableness.
Overview of Studies
We conducted two studies to examine the relation-
shipbetweenaccessible blame andanger andaggression
while simultaneously examining the moderating role of
agreeableness. To measure the accessibility of blame, we
constructed a choice reaction time task. Participants
were asked to quickly and accurately classify words as
blameworthy or not. We expected speed on the task to
interact with agreeableness in predicting (a) anger and
arguments during the course of daily life (Study 1), (b)
hostile feelings during the course of a semester (Study
2), and (c) anger in response to a short video involving a
blameworthy action (Study 2).
STUDY 1
We evaluated multiple hypotheses related to the rela-
tionship between agreeableness, accessible blame, and
anger/arguing. One plausible hypothesis, which prior
research led us to doubt (Robinson et al., 2003), was that
858 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
agreeableness would be related to the accessibility of
blame such that more agreeable individuals would be
slow in assigning blame. If so, we would then be able to
test whether agreeable people experience less anger
because they have less accessible blame. Because we did
not expect any relation between agreeableness and the
accessibility of blame, we did not expect this hypothesis
to be supported. Asecond plausible hypothesis, one that
we regarded as more likely, was that agreeableness would
play a moderating role in the blame/anger and blame/
arguing relationships. We thought it likely that the rela-
tionship between accessible blame and anger would be
linear and positive among those low in agreeableness
but not among those high in agreeableness. Study 1 tests
this interaction hypothesis.
Study 1 also hadother goals. One, we wantedto exam-
ine the test-retest stability of blame categorization ten-
dencies. Prior research involving residualized choice
reaction time led us to expect moderate test-retest corre-
lations throughout a 1-monthperiod (Robinsonet al., in
press). If such a result were found here, then we would
gain more confidence in accessible blame as an individ-
ual difference variable. Two, we wanted to examine
everyday occurrences of anger. We asked participants to
carry palmtop computers for 1 week. They were asked to
complete questionnaires about their momentary feel-
ings of anger every time that they were pagedby the com-
puter. Three, we wantedtoextendour analysis toantago-
nistic behavior as well as antagonistic feelings (i.e.,
anger). Thus, we asked participants whether they were
arguing (0 = no, 1 = yes) at the time of the page. Although
some episodes of arguing may not be aggressive (e.g.,
when debating), we reasoned that, in general, arguing
with others can be seen as an antagonistic behavior that
occurs withsome (albeit low) frequency ineveryday life.
Method
PARTICIPANTS
Participants were 167 undergraduates who partici-
pated in the study in exchange for extra course credit
and monetary compensation ($20). The study was con-
ducted throughout the course of two semesters.
PROCEDURES
To gain adequate power to examine our hypotheses,
we conducted the study throughout the course of two
semesters. The procedures were the same during both
semesters (withone relevant exception noted below). In
an initial assessment portion of the study (a 1-week time
period), we measured the accessibility of blame and
agreeableness, along with other measures irrelevant to
this study. In a subsequent experience-sampling portion
of the study (a 1-month time period), each participant
was given a palmtop computer for 1 week. Dependent
measures from this experience-sampling portion of the
study will be reported below. In the second (n = 71), but
not first (n = 96), semester of the study, participants then
returned to complete a second assessment session.
Because the same blame accessibility task was included
in this session, we could examine test-retest stability
throughout the course of a month.
MATERIALS
Agreeableness. Agreeableness was measured using
Goldbergs (1997) 10-item agreeableness scale. This
scale has participants rate the extent (1 = very inaccurate,
5 = very accurate) towhicha series of statements (e.g., am
interested in other people) describes them. An average
agreeableness score was computed from the 10 state-
ments (= .87) after reverse scoring the negatively keyed
statements.
Blame accessibility. To measure the accessibility of
blame, we asked participants to classify words as blame-
worthy (9 key) or not (1 key). Measures of construct
accessibility (Kelly, 1963), as well as choice reaction time
more generally (Sanders, 1998), require a contrasting
pole (i.e., not blameworthy) to ensure that objects are
encoded with reference to the construct of interest (i.e.,
blame). Task instructions told participants to be both
fast and accurate in their categorizations. Blameworthy
words were described as suggesting that someone is to
blame for an action and nonblameworthy words were
described as suggesting no one is to blame. Blamewor-
thy words were oilspill, hangover, murder, sin, crime,
adultery, addiction, and malpractice. Nonblameworthy
words were bladder, landslide, baldness, flu, worm, hur-
ricane, centipede, and toilet. Words were presented in
two blocks, one consisting of 16 practice trials and one
consisting of 30 experimental trials. If participants were
inaccurate, they were given a 2-s visual error message.
Each trial was separated by a 150-ms, blank screen.
Participants also completed a second task, which con-
sisted of categorizing words as an animal (e.g., bear, fox)
or not (e.g., chair, mop). The procedures were identical
to the blameworthy versus nonblameworthy task de-
scribed above.
For Semester 1, accuracy rates were 94%and 97%for
the blame and animal blocks, respectively. For Semester
2, accuracy rates were 95%and 97%for the blame block
(Times 1 and 2, respectively) and 94% and 96% for the
animal block (Times 1 and 2, respectively). In comput-
ing mean speed scores for the blame and animal blocks,
we first dropped inaccurate trials. We then replaced
reaction times less than 300 ms or greater than 3,000 ms
with these cutoff values (which resulted in 1.0%, 0.7%,
and 0.6% of the scores being replaced in Semester 1,
Semester 2Time 1, and Semester 2Time 2, respec-
tively). Reaction times were log-transformed to normal-
ize their distribution (Ratcliff, 1993). Participants who
were faster at assigning blame also tended to be more
accurate in doing so (rs = .21, .20, and .28 in Semes-
ter 1, Semester 2Time 1, and Semester 2Time 2,
respectively).
We used the animal block to control for partici-
pants baseline speed in responding (Fazio, 1990). To
do this, we performed a regression analysis with speed on
the animal block predicting speed on the blame block.
The regression equation was then used to remove base-
line categorization speed. Thus, the residualized blame
score was highly correlated with speed on the blame
block but was uncorrelated with speed on the animal
block.
The residualized blame speed scores did not corre-
late with agreeableness (rs = .14, .04, and .05 in
Semester 1, Semester 2Time 1, and Semester 2Time 2,
respectively). Thus, agreeableness and the accessibility
of blame are independent, although potentially inter-
active, individual difference measures.
Experience sampling.The experience-sampling portion
of the study involved having participants answer ques-
tions concerning their emotions and behavior at ran-
dom times throughout the day. Random pages could
come anytime between the hours of 10 a.m. and 10 p.m.
Once paged, participants were given 2 min to respond.
Participants in the first semester were given six random
pages a day for 7 days, resulting in 42 potential reports.
They completed an average of 33.78 (80.43%) of these
reports. Participants in the second semester were given
five random pages a day for 7 days, resulting in 35 po-
tential reports. They completed an average of 27.42
(78.34%).
Results
In Semester 2, we measured the accessibility of blame
at two times, with a 1-month interval in between. As ex-
pected, the test-retest correlation was moderately stable,
r = .500, p = .000. We also assessed the stability of the
Agreeableness Blame Accessibility interaction re-
portedinthis article. This interactiontermwas alsomod-
erately stable throughout the same 1-month interval, r =
.520, p = .000. These results suggest that it is legitimate to
viewthe accessibility of blame as anindividual difference
variable.
We had two main purposes in using the experience-
sampling methodology. One was to ensure that reports
were concurrent with actual experiences (Robinson &
Clore, 2002). Asecond major purpose was to obtainmul-
tiple assessments of anger and argument so that aggre-
gated scores would be very reliable (Epstein, 1980).
Because all of our variables varied on a between-subjects
basis, we used multiple regression for testing interac-
tions (Aiken & West, 1991).
2
In conducting these regressions, we first averaged
across reports. We then z scored both agreeableness and
blame categorization scores and computed an interac-
tion term. Both main effects as well as the interaction
term were simultaneously entered in a multiple regres-
sion predicting anger (Aiken & West, 1991).
In predicting anger, there was no main effect for
agreeableness, = .082, p = .277, or blame accessi-
bilty, = .073, p = .335. However, the interaction term
was significant, = .150, p = .048. To understand this
interaction, we obtained predicted means ( 1 SD) for
the four groups by crossing agreeableness with blame
accessibility (Aiken & West, 1991). We then conducted
a simple slope analysis. As shown in Figure 1, a straight-
forward relationship was found between blame accessi-
bility andanger for those lowinagreeableness, = .241,
p = .039, but not for those highinagreeableness, = .095,
p = .385.
In predicting the online tendency toward argument,
we performed a parallel multiple regression. In this
regression analysis, there was no main effect for agree-
ableness, = .002, p = .984, or blame accessibility, =
.087, p = .256. However, the interaction term was a sig-
nificant predictor, = .200, p = .001. To understand this
interaction, we obtained predicted means ( 1 SD) for
the four groups by crossing agreeableness with blame
accessibility. We then conducted a simple slope analysis.
As shown in Figure 2, a straightforward relationship was
found between blame accessibility and the tendency
toward argument for those low in agreeableness, =
.304, p = .009, but not for those high in agreeableness,
= .131, p = .230.
1.60
1.65
1.70
1.75
1.80
1.85
1.90
Low High
Blame Accessibility
O
n
l
i
n
e

A
n
g
e
r
Low Trait
Agreeableness
High Trait
Agreeableness
Figure 1 Anger as a function of agreeableness and blame
accessibility, Study 1.
Discussion
In Study 1, we found that agreeableness moderated
the relationship between the accessibility of blame and
everyday experiences of anger and arguing. The interac-
tion suggests that in the absence of accessible blame, no
one is particularly angry or aggressive. This is true of
those low in agreeableness as well as those high in this
trait. The interaction also suggests that the relationship
between accessible blame and anger is not strictly linear.
Among those lowinagreeableness, it is true that the like-
lihood of anger varies in a positive, linear fashion with
the accessibility of blame. However, among those highin
agreeableness, this was not true. This is an important
qualification to an accessibility analysis of anger and
aggression which, by and large, does not consider the
regulatory influence of prosocial traits and motives.
The findings of Study 1 are therefore both encourag-
inganddiscouraging for anaccessibility analysis of anger
and aggression. They are encouraging for such an analy-
sis because they show that at least among those low in
agreeableness, the accessibility of blame has a straight-
forward relation to anger and aggression. Such results
suggest that if we want to prevent anger and aggression,
we should seek to prevent the triggers of accessible
blame. However, our results are also discouraging for
such an analysis because they show that, at least in terms
of main effects, there is no simple relation between
antagonistic thoughts (here defined as blame) and
anger and aggression. Among individuals high in agree-
ableness, accessible blame actually seems to contribute
(albeit not significantly) to prosocial feelings and
behavior rather than antisocial ones.
The interactive nature of our results appear to pro-
vide support for regulatory conceptions of agreeable-
ness (e.g., Ahadi & Rothbart, 1994). Given accessible
blame, individuals low versus high in agreeableness
experience quite different feelings. Individuals low in
agreeableness experience hostile feelings, whereas indi-
viduals high in agreeableness do not. In supporting reg-
ulatory conceptions of agreeableness, the results simul-
taneously point to the importance of both trait- and
process-based approaches to personality (Robinson
et al., 2003, in press). Because there was no correlation
betweenagreeableness andthe accessibility of blame, we
cannot simply equate one with the other. On the other
hand, knowledge concerning both agreeableness and
blame accessibility was important in predicting anger
and aggression; in this sense, both variables are valid
predictors.
Considering the test-retest stability of our blame
accessibility measure, we should not expect process-
based measures of individual differences to be as stable
as trait-based measures (Robinson & Neighbors, in
press). There are a variety of reasons why this is true. Of
particular importance in the present context, accessibil-
ity is thought to be a joint product of the person and the
situation(Bruner, 1957). If so, accessibility measures will
not be as stable as traits, which are thought to be rela-
tively immune from situational influences (McCrae &
Costa, 1994). Despite these factors, we found the test-
retest stability of blame accessibility to be moderate.
These findings encourage social cognitive accounts of
aggression, which tend to emphasize accessibility biases
in antisocial thoughts (Dodge, 1993).
Criticism is sometimes directed at laboratory mea-
sures of aggression, specifically because of concerns
about the generalizability to everyday life (Anderson &
Bushman, 1997). Our measure of aggressionthe ten-
dency towardargumentmay be less susceptible tosuch
criticisms, specifically because it was collected on the
basis of an experience-sampling protocol. Although
arguing is not the most harmful behavior indicative of
aggression, it is at least one everyday behavior that has
frequently been linked to aggression in past research
(Buss & Perry, 1992). As we see it, both laboratory-based
(e.g., levels of noise blasts) and experience-sampling
methodologies should be used to examine aggression.
Each has advantages that the other does not. For exam-
ple, whereas laboratory measures of aggression are
often less ambiguous in terms of underlying motives,
experience-sampling measures of aggression may be
easier to generalize to everyday life.
STUDY 2
In Study 2, we wanted to conceptually replicate the
interactionpatternfoundinStudy 1. Inaddition, Study 2
sought to show that the same Agreeableness Blame
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
5.00%
Low High
Blame Accessibility
O
n
l
i
n
e

A
r
g
u
i
n
g

(
%

o
f

t
i
m
e
)
Low Trait
Agreeableness
High Trait
Agreeableness
Figure 2 Percentage of time arguing as a function of agreeableness
and blame accessibility, Study 1.
Accessibility interactioncharacterizes anger withina lab-
oratory setting. One advantage of this laboratory setting
was that we could precisely control stimulus input
(which is not possible in experience-sampling proto-
cols). If a similar interaction characterizes responses to a
short video, then we can conclude that the interaction
pertains to interpretations of stimulus input rather than
the occurrence of adversarial life events.
Another goal of Study 2 was to examine the impact of
situational cues to anger. In Study 1, we measured blame
accessibility but did not manipulate it. Because accessi-
bility is a joint product of the person and the situation,
we should observe similar results regardless of whether
we measure or manipulate the accessibility of blame.
Specifically, if agreeableness serves an important role in
regulating the impact of accessible blame on anger,
thena manipulationof accessible blame shouldproduce
parallel effects to Study 1: Accessible blame should
increase anger among those low, but not high, in agree-
ableness. In Study 2, we used incidental priming proce-
dures to manipulate the accessibility of blame (Bargh &
Chartrand, 2000). We then examined the impact of ac-
cessible blame on reactions to a video that depicted a
potentially blameworthy individual.
Method
PARTICIPANTS
Participants were 93 undergraduates.
PROCEDURES
Participants were part of a personality class. Through-
out the course of a semester, they completed weekly lab
assignments. The accessibility of blame and agreeable-
ness were measured in one of these weekly labs. Retro-
spective hostile feelings were measured at three differ-
ent points in time during the semester. These three
points in time, because they were each separated by a
period of weeks, spanned the semester.
One week after participants completed the blame
accessibility task, they completed a blame priming
manipulation at the beginning of the session. They then
participated in what they thought was another study. In
this second portion of the study, they watched a short
video about a young man that could elicit hostility or
empathy (presumably depending on attributions for
behavior as well as levels of prosocial motivation). After
the video, participants completed self-reports of their
feelings toward the man shown in the film.
MATERIALS
Agreeableness. Agreeableness was measured using
Goldbergs (1992) unipolar markers. These include 10
positively keyed items (e.g., kind, cooperative) and 10
negatively keyed items (e.g., cold, selfish). Participants
rated themselves on each item using a scale ranging
from 1 (extremely inaccurate) to 5 (extremely accurate). An
average agreeableness score was computed ( = .87)
after reverse scoring the negatively keyed items.
Retrospective hostile feelings. We wanted to assess hostile
feelings at more than one time period to obtain a reli-
able measurement of participants dispositional hostil-
ity. Therefore, participants were asked at three different
times to rate the frequency (0 = not at all, 7 = always) with
which they felt angry, hostile, irritable, and annoyed
withinthe past month. These items overlap considerably
with those used in the hostility scale of the PANAS-X
(Watson &Clark, 1994). Alpha coefficients were .73, .77,
and .82 for Times 1, 2, and 3, respectively. We therefore
averaged across items to create a single mean for hostile
feelings at each time. Test-retest correlations suggested
that we also could average across time frames to get a rel-
atively reliable measure of dispositional hostile affect
(i.e., rs = .44, .50, and.58 for Times 1 and2, 1 and3, and2
and 3, respectively).
Blame accessibility. The blame accessibility task was
identical to the one described in Study 1. As in Study 1,
participants also completed the animal/not animal task.
We used the animal block to control for participants
baseline speed in responding (Fazio, 1990). Accuracy
rates for the blame and animal blocks were 95% and
97%, respectively. In computing mean speed for each of
the blocks, we first deleted inaccurate trials. We then
replaced reaction times less than 300 ms and greater
than 3,000 ms with these cutoff values (.7% of re-
sponses). Reactions times were log-transformed to nor-
malize their distribution (Ratcliff, 1993). In the blame
block, participants who were more accurate also tended
to be faster, although this relationship was not signifi-
cant, r = .140, p = .120.
Blame accessibility was measured during the same ses-
sion as agreeableness, although there were intervening
tasks that were not part of the current study. Blame acces-
sibility and agreeableness were not significantly corre-
lated, r = .040, p = .730.
Blame priming. In this portion of the study, we told par-
ticipants that we were interested in how many word per-
ception items they could complete in 2 min. We ran-
domly assignedparticipants toone of twoblame priming
manipulations. In the first, we asked participants to cir-
cle one of two words froma series of 62 word pairs. Word
pairs consisted of one blameworthy word along with one
nonblameworthy word, with position chosen at random.
Participants in the blame priming condition were asked
to circle one of the two words that indicates that some-
one is to blame for an action (e.g., murder, cheating).
Participants inthe control conditionwere askedtocircle
one of the two words that indicates that no one is to
blame for any action (e.g., hurricane, Alzheimers). The
task was modeled after Skelton and Strohmetz (1990).
Participants tended to complete more than half of the
word pairs within the 2 min allotted to the task.
Approximately half of the participants were assigned
to a second manipulation. Participants were asked to
underline three of four words to form a sentence (see
Wyer & Srull, 1986). There were 40 sets of words, 20 of
whichcomprisedthe manipulationand20 of whichwere
filler in nature. In the blame priming condition, 20
word sets were constructed so that the completed sen-
tences emphasized blameworthy actions (e.g., he is lazy,
she is reckless). In the control condition, 20 word sets
were constructed so that the completed sentences
emphasized victimization by situational forces (e.g.,
flu is bad, avoid the hurricane). Participants tended to
complete roughly half of the items within the 2 min
allotted.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four
conditions createdby crossing type of task (words vs. sen-
tences) by type of prime (blame vs. control). The type of
task factor did not moderate the findings of interest so
we collapsed across this variable below.
Video. After the priming manipulation, participants
were askedtoparticipate inwhat they thought was a sepa-
rate study concerning person perception. They viewed a
1.5-min video takenfromthe TVnews magazine show48
Hours. This was a real-life situationinvolving a police offi-
cer and a young, male, heroin addict who was filmed
from a disguised police vehicle. In the video, the young
man is walking in the street as the police officer in the
van (a drug-unit veteran) describes the negative nature
of drugs and addicts. The police officer suggests that the
young man may have just shot up. He confronts the
man, who first denies using heroin. When the cop finds
the needle, the young man says its just water. Eventu-
ally, the young man admits to having a heroin problem
andbegs the cop to let himoff. He pleads that hes trying
to quit and has an appointment at a treatment center
next week. The officer hardly believes himbut decides to
let himgo, saying, Ill see you later. Although the video
was short, we expected it to be evocative because it
depicted a real person involved in a real life-and-death
struggle.
Video dependent measures. After the video, participants
reported on the extent to which they felt anger toward
the heroinaddict. They didsoona 5-point intensity scale
(1 = I feel none of this feeling, 5 = I feel this feeling very strongly)
with seven markers of anger-related feelings (irritation,
annoyance, impatience, anger, disgust, contempt, and
hostility). Ahostile feelings score (= .91) was createdby
averaging across items.
In addition to asking participants about how they felt
toward the heroin addict, we also asked participants for
appraisals of fault. Participants used a 5-point scale (1 =
definitely not true, 5 = definitely true) in doing so. There
were three relevant statements: he is at fault, his prob-
lems are completely his responsibility, and he is to blame
for his problems. We collapsed across items (= .82). We
thought it likely that both the chronic and temporary
variables related to the accessibility of blame would pre-
dict fault judgments. However, givenour previous results
involving no correlation between agreeableness and the
chronic measure of blame accessibility, we did not ex-
pect agreeableness to predict fault judgments.
Results
RETROSPECTIVE HOSTILE FEELINGS
To determine the impact of blame accessibility and
agreeableness on hostile feelings, we z scored both of
them and also computed their interaction term (Aiken
& West, 1991). We then entered agreeableness, blame
accessibility, and the interaction term simultaneously in
a multiple regressionanalysis predicting hostile feelings.
Those high in agreeableness reported less hostile feel-
ings, = .300, p = .003. Blame accessibility was not
related to hostile feelings, = .100, p = .339. Of primary
interest was the significant interaction between agree-
ableness and blame accessibility, = .200, p = .050. To
understand this interaction, we obtained predicted
means ( 1 SD) for the four groups by crossing agree-
ableness with blame accessibility (Aiken & West, 1991).
We then conducted a simple slope analysis. As shown in
Figure 3, a straightforward relationship was found
between blame accessibility and hostile feelings for
1.10
1.25
1.40
1.55
1.70
1.85
Low High
Blame Accessibility
H
o
s
t
i
l
e

F
e
e
l
i
n
g
s
Low Trait
Agreeableness
High Trait
Agreeableness
Figure 3 Hostile feelings as a function of agreeableness and blame
accessibility, Study 2.
those lowinagreeableness, = .288, p = .048, but not for
those high in agreeableness, = .104, p = .448.
VIDEO DEPENDENT MEASURES
To determine the effect our variables had on hostile
feelings toward the video protagonist, we performed a
multiple regression analysis. We first coded the blame
priming factor (blame = +1, not blame = 1). We then z
scored agreeableness and the chronic measure of blame
accessibility. We next computed interaction terms for
each measure of blame accessibility with agreeableness
(i.e., Agreeableness Blame Manipulation and Agree-
ableness Chronic Blame). Preliminary analysis re-
vealed that there were no significant interactions involv-
ing blame priming and chronic blame. One would not
expect such interactions as situational and chronic
accessibility are typically viewed as additive rather than
interactive (Higgins, 1996). We therefore dropped these
terms in the analysis reported below. Thus, in the final
multiple regression, we tested for main effects with each
of the three variables (blame priming, chronic blame,
and agreeableness) as well as two-way interactions with
Agreeableness Blame Priming and Agreeableness
Chronic Blaming.
In terms of main effects, there was no effect for blame
priming, = .078, p = .419. There was, however, a main
effect for agreeableness, = .266, p = .006, such that
agreeable individuals reported less anger toward the
heroin addict. There was also a main effect for chronic
blame, = .256, p = .009, such that those faster to blame
felt more anger. As expected, finally, the lower-order
effects were qualified by a two-way interaction between
Agreeableness and Chronic Blaming, = .277, p = .004,
as well as a two-way interaction between Agreeableness
andthe Blame Priming manipulation, =.269, p =.006.
The Agreeableness Chronic Blaming interaction
replicates the pattern found in Study 1 and the pattern
found with retrospective hostile feelings in the current
study. To determine if the pattern was conceptually simi-
lar to these results, we obtained predicted means ( 1
SD) for the four groups created by crossing the two vari-
ables. We then conducted a simple slope analysis. As
shown in Figure 4, a straightforward relationship was
found between blame accessibility and feelings of anger
for those lowinagreeableness, = .540, p = .000, but not
for those high in agreeableness, = .043, p = .751.
We viewed the blame priming manipulation as a way
to conceptually replicate our prior results, this time
using a manipulation of accessible blame rather than a
measurement of it. To determine the nature of the two-
way interaction that resulted, we obtained predicted
means ( 1 SD) for each of the relevant four groups.
We then conducted a simple slope analysis. As shown in
Figure 5, the interaction was parallel to the others re-
ported in this article. That is, a straightforward relation-
ship was found between the blame priming manipula-
tionandfeelings of anger for those lowinagreeableness,
= .367, p = .015, but not for those highinagreeableness,
= .174, p = .226.
Finally, we examined appraisals of fault withina multi-
ple regression. The results supported the validity of the
two measures of blame accessibility. Specifically, both
chronic blaming, = .198, p = .043, andthe blame prim-
ing manipulation, = .253, p = .009, predicted appraisals
of fault. Participants who were placed in the blame prim-
ing (relative to control) condition gave higher judg-
ments of fault. Also, participants who were fast to classify
words as blameworthy gave higher judgments of fault. By
contrast, there was no effect for agreeableness or any
interactions involving this variable. Thus, agreeableness
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
Low High
Blame Accessibility
H
o
s
t
i
l
e

F
e
e
l
i
n
g
s
Low Trait
Agreeableness
High Trait
Agreeableness
Figure 4 Hostile feelings towards protagonist as a function of
agreeableness and blame accessibility, Study 2.
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
No Yes
Blame Priming
H
o
s
t
i
l
e

F
e
e
l
i
n
g
s
Low Trait
Agreeableness
High Trait
Agreeableness
Figure 5 Hostile feelings toward protagonist as a function of
agreeableness and blame priming, Study 2.
was not associated with appraisal tendencies related to
blame; rather, it was associated with the process of trans-
lating blame into anger.
Discussion
In Study 2, we found that agreeableness moderated
the relationship between blame accessibility and retro-
spective hostile feelings and anger toward a character in
a short video. As in Study 1, there was a straightforward
relationship between (chronic) blame accessibility and
anger, but only among individuals low in agreeableness.
In addition, we found that those participants assigned to
a condition in which blame was primed reported more
anger toward a character ina short video, but only if they
were low in agreeableness. The results, because they
offer conceptual replication across an assessment and
manipulation of accessible blame, give us more confi-
dence in the moderating role of agreeableness.
In Study 2, we were also able to provide validity data
relatedtothe blame accessibility measure andmanipula-
tion. Both chronic and situational forms of blame acces-
sibility predicted fault judgments, such that the higher
the blame accessibility, the higher the fault judgments.
As expected, however, agreeableness did not relate to
fault judgments, either alone or in combination with the
accessibility measures. We therefore suggest that agree-
ableness is not related to blaming or fault finding so
much as it is related to the regulation of the anger and
aggression that could result from accessible blame.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Anger is a subjective experience that has potentially
destructive effects for the individual experiencing it and
others involved. Predicting whois likely tobecome angry
therefore has obvious benefits. One variable that has
been shownto relate to anger is the assignment of blame
(Averill, 1983). Individuals who report being angry also
tend to report blaming someone for the cause of that
anger (Parkinson, 1999).
In the current studies, we sought to predict the expe-
rience of anger by measuring the extent to which blame-
worthy concepts are accessible in memory using a cate-
gorization task that assesses encoding processes. We
then used blame speed, in conjunction with agreeable-
ness, to predict the experience of hostile feelings (i.e.,
anger). For those individuals high in agreeableness,
there was no straightforward relationship between
blame accessibility and hostile feelings. However, for
those individuals low in agreeableness, chronic blame
accessibility shared a positive relationship with everyday
occurrences of anger and argument (Study 1) and retro-
spective hostile feelings (Study 2). In addition, for those
individuals low in agreeableness, chronic blame accessi-
bility and primed blame accessibility were positively
related to hostile feelings toward a protagonist in a short
video (Study 2).
Our findings are quite relevant to the idea that anger
and aggression have a cognitive basis. Others suggest
that the accessibility of antisocial thoughts is a key culprit
behind aggressive behavior (Anderson & Bushman,
2002). To our knowledge, however, this explanation for
aggressive behavior has remained largely inferential,
particularly because no one has correlated variations in
accessibility with variations in aggression. By contrast,
the current studies do reveal that variations in accessi-
ble blame led to variations in anger (both studies) and
tendencies toward argument (Study 1). On the basis of
these results, we would endorse the view that the acces-
sibility of antagonistic thoughts is a trigger of anger and
aggression. However, our results also suggest limita-
tions to this view. In all studies, we found that variations
in accessible blame were not related to variations in
anger among those high in agreeableness. Agreeable-
ness, therefore, served to either facilitate (low agree-
ableness) or inhibit (high agreeableness) the blame/
anger relation.
Agreeableness as Regulation
Our findings suggest a disconnect betweenblame and
anger among those high in agreeableness. How is this
disconnect achieved? It seems likely to us that, at some
level, agreeable individuals are sensitive toincipient con-
flict and anger. As a way of inhibiting anger from form-
ing, agreeable individuals may be able to recruit
prosocial thoughts (e.g., those related to liking) pre-
cisely when such thoughts would be most useful in fight-
ing tendencies towards anger. In other words, it seems
likely to us that agreeable individuals engage in moti-
vated cognitive processing as a way of reaffirming the
worth of a relationship and thereby diffusing anger and
aggression. Although we did not present direct evidence
for such regulatory processing among individuals high
in agreeableness, our findings are certainly consistent
with this idea.
Furthermore, there are some precedents inthe litera-
ture. Tobin et al. (2000), for example, found that agree-
able individuals attempted to control the negative emo-
tions produced by negatively valenced pictures. In
addition, Ahadi and Rothbart (1994) provide relevant
considerations for the view that agreeableness relates to
the inhibition of frustration and anger in the service of
relationship development and maintenance.
Related to these ideas, our lab has been pursuing the
regulatory cognitive strategies that agreeable people
may use to diffuse anger. Of particular relevance in the
current context, we have found that the accessibility of
prosocial thoughts seems to validate our account.
Although agreeable individuals are not chronically
faster to categorize prosocial words (e.g., help, love),
they are faster under certain conditions. Following a
prime wordrelatedtofrustrationanddistress (e.g., pain,
misery), we found that agreeable individuals were faster
to categorize prosocial words; under these same condi-
tions, disagreeable individuals were slower to categorize
prosocial words (Meier, Robinson, & Wilkowski, 2004).
These initial results support the idea that agreeable
individuals recruit prosocial thoughts particularly when
they are frustrated or distressed. There would be at least
two consequences of this pattern. One, accessible
prosocial thoughts wouldmore or less cancel out accessi-
ble antisocial thoughts, in effect diffusing the likelihood
of anger and aggression given frustration. And two, such
strategic retrieval would, over time, result in a discon-
nect between frustration and anger. This is because the
activation of prosocial thoughts would prevent associa-
tions between frustration and antisocial thoughts from
being strengthened (Smith, 1998). Thus, agreeable peo-
ple might change the pattern of connections in their
semantic memory network suchthat the typical routes to
anger and aggressionfrustration, blame, aggressive
cuesbecome disconnected from anger and aggres-
sion. Obviously, future researchonsuchtheory wouldbe
desirable.
Indeed, although we know a great deal about the situ-
ational determinants of aggression (e.g., violent media),
we know comparatively less about the marked individual
differences that seem to characterize the likelihood of
aggressive behavior. Our results suggest that agreeable-
ness plays an important moderating role in the likeli-
hood of anger given accessible blame. Thus, we suggest
that future studies on anger and aggression should ex-
amine the role of agreeableness in moderating the basic
pattern of findings.
Individual Differences in Categorization
Prior research on implicit and explicit motivation
(McClelland, 1987) has suggested that traits capture
only certain aspects of personality. People are able to
form certain generalizations about their behavior and
experience, but they are not able to know their ten-
dencies related to attention, encoding, and retrieval
(MacLeod, 1993). Thus, a more complete understand-
ing of personality will supplement standard self-report
instruments with process-based measures. As suggested
by Robinson et al. (2003), we found that agreeableness
and the accessibility of blame were uncorrelated. Thus,
we cannot use levels of agreeableness tomake inferences
about the persons likely encoding tendencies. However,
both trait- and process-based measures were important
inpredicting anger andaggressionineveryday life. They
interacted in a predictable, but novel, manner such that
the angriest individuals were high in blame accessibility
andlowinagreeableness. The consistency withwhichwe
found this interaction encourages us to think that nei-
ther agreeableness nor accessibility gives a complete
view of the individual; rather, one must assess both to
make the most precise predictions about the persons
likely tendencies (Robinson & Neighbors, in press).
Several findings encourage us to think that the blame
accessibility measure presented here is a reliable and
valid individual difference variable. One, the test-retest
stability of this measure was quite respectable for implicit
tests. Two, the same interactionwas observed across mul-
tiple studies andmultiple dependent measures. Three, a
manipulation of the accessibility of blame (Study 2) pro-
duced a conceptually similar pattern to the measure of
chronic blaming. And four, the measure (as well as
manipulation) of blame accessibility predicted fault
judgments (Study 2), a finding that we would expect if
the measure is related to ones tendency to blame others
for their actions. Thus, the data support our a priori
notion that speed to assign blame in a choice reaction
time task reflects the accessibility, or habitual use, of
blame in daily life (Robinson, in press).
Althoughtrait andsocial cognitive approaches to per-
sonality are often seen as competitors (e.g., Cervone &
Shoda, 1999), our results suggest that both types of mea-
sures, although perhaps not directly related to each
other, are useful in predicting behavior. Therefore, we
encourage further work examining the joint contribu-
tions of trait- and process-based views of personality (see
also Robinson et al., in press).
Conclusions
The results of two studies suggest that the accessibility
of blame contributes to anger and aggression, but only
for those low in agreeableness. As such, we found that
the angriest individuals were those who were high in
accessible blame and low in agreeableness. The findings
suggest that accounts of anger and aggression should
emphasize both traits and the accessibility of antisocial
thoughts. Both trait- and process-based approaches to
anger and aggression have validity, but particularly in an
interactive manner.
NOTES
1. We recognize that thoughts related to hurting and killing others
are more clearly antisocial innature than the thoughts examinedhere.
However, one definition of antisocial thoughts might be thoughts that
have a strong relation to anger and aggression. Under this definition,
blame-related thoughts clearly are antisocial as blame has been repeat-
edly linked to anger and aggression (Berkowitz, 1993).
2. In this connection, we should mention that using experience-
sampling methods in this manner does not require hierarchical linear
modeling, which is specifically suited to examining within-subject
covariations between one variable (e.g., blame) and another (e.g.,
anger).
REFERENCES
Ahadi, S. A., & Rothbart, M. K. (1994). Temperament, development,
and the big five. In C. F. Halverson, Jr., G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P.
Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality
from infancy to adulthood (pp. 189-207). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and inter-
preting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame.
Psychological Bulletin, 126, 556-574.
Anderson, C. A. (1997). Effects of violent video movies and trait hos-
tility on hostile feelings and aggressive thoughts. Aggressive Behav-
ior, 23, 161-178.
Anderson, C. A., Benjamin, A. B., Jr., &Bartholow, B. D. (1998). Does
the gun pull the trigger? Automatic priming effect of weapons pic-
tures and weapons names. Psychological Science, 9, 308-314.
Anderson, C. A., &Bushman, B. J. (1997). External validity of trivial
experiments: The case of laboratory aggression. Review of General
Psychology, 1, 19-41.
Anderson, C. A., &Bushman, B. J. (2002). Humanaggression. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 27-51.
Averill, J. R. (1983). Studies on anger and aggression: Implications
for theories of emotion. American Psychologist, 38, 1145-1160.
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A
practical guide to priming and automaticity research. InH. T. Reis
&C. M. Judd(Eds.), Handbook of research methods insocial and person-
ality psychology (pp. 253-285). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bruner, J. S. (1957). On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review, 64,
123-152.
Bushman, B. J. (1995). Moderating role of trait aggressiveness in the
effects of violent media on aggression. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 69, 950-960.
Buss, A. H., &Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459.
Cervone, D., & Shoda, Y. (1999). Social-cognitive theories and the
coherence of personality. In D. Cervone & Y. Shoda (Eds.), The
coherence of personality: Social-cognitive bases of consistency, variability,
and organization (pp. 3-33). New York: Guilford.
Chumbley, J. I. (1986). The roles of typicality, instance dominance,
and category dominance in verifying category membership. Jour-
nal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12,
257-267.
Dodge, K. A. (1993). Social-cognitive mechanisms in the develop-
ment of conduct disorder and depression. Annual Review of Psy-
chology, 44, 559-584.
Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Cumberland, A., Murphy, B. C.,
Shepard, S. A., Zhou, Q., et al. (2002). Prosocial development in
early adulthood: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 82, 993-1006.
Epstein, S. (1980). The stability of behavior: II. Implications for psy-
chological research. American Psychologist, 35, 790-806.
Fazio, R. H. (1990). Apractical guide to the use of response latency in
social psychological research. InC. Hendrick &M. S. Clark (Eds.),
Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 74-97). New-
bury Park, CA: Sage.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five
factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.
Goldberg, L. R. (1997). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality
inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models.
Retrieved August 24, 1999, from http://ipip.ori.org/ipip.
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., &Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiv-
ing interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agree-
ableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 820-835.
Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicabil-
ity, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social
psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133-168). New York:
Guilford.
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., &Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a
moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69, 323-
362.
Joordens, S., & Becker, S. (1997). The long and short of semantic
priming effects in lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1083-1105.
Kelly, G. A. (1963). A theory of personality: The psychology of constructs.
New York: Norton & Company.
Lindsay, J. L., &Anderson, C. A. (2000). Fromantecedent conditions
to violent actions: Ageneral affective aggressionmodel. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 533-547.
MacLeod, C. (1993). Cognition in clinical psychology: Measures,
methods, or models? Behaviour Change, 10, 169-165.
McClelland, D. C. (1987). Human motivation. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1994). The stability of personality:
Observations and evaluations. Current Directions in Psychological Sci-
ence, 3, 173-175.
Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., & Wilkowski, B. M. (2004). Turning the
other cheek in semantic priming: Aggressive cues, prosocial thoughts, and
agreeableness. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Parkinson, B. (1999). Relations and dissociations between appraisal
and emotion ratings of reasonable and unreasonable anger and
guilt. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 347-385.
Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers.
Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510-532.
Robinson, M. D. (in press). Personality as performance: Categoriza-
tion tendencies and their correlates. Current Directions in Psycholog-
ical Science.
Robinson, M. D., &Clore, G. L. (2002). Episodic and semantic knowl-
edge in emotional self-report: Evidence for two judgment pro-
cesses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 198-215.
Robinson, M. D., & Neighbors, C. (in press). Catching the mind in
action: Implicit methods in personality research and assessment.
In M. Eid &E. Diener (Eds.), Handbook of psychological assessment: A
multimethod perspective. Washington, DC: APA Press.
Robinson, M. D., Sohlberg, E. C., Vargas, P., & Tamir, M. (in press).
Trait as default: Extraversion, subjective well-being, and the dis-
tinction between neutral and positive events. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology.
Robinson, M. D., Vargas, P., &Crawford, E. G. (2003). Putting process
into personality, appraisal, and emotion: Evaluative processing as
a missing link. In J. Musch &C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of eval-
uation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 275-306).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sanders, A. F. (1998). Elements of human performance. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Shaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility,
and blameworthiness. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Skelton, J. A., & Strohmetz, D. B. (1990). Priming symptoms reports
with health-related cognitive activity. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 16, 449-464.
Smith, E. R. (1998). Mental representations and memory. In D. T.
Gilbert & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol.
2, 4th ed., pp. 391-445). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tobin, R. M., Graziano, W. G., Vanman, E. J., & Tassinary, L. G.
(2000). Personality, emotional experience, and efforts to control
emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 656-669.
Watson, D., &Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive
and negative affect scheduleexpanded form. Iowa City: University of
Iowa Press.
Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of
social conduct. New York: Guilford.
Wyer, R. S., &Srull, T. K. (1986). Human cognition and its social con-
text. Psychological Review, 93, 322-359.
Zillmann, D. (1983). Transfer of excitation in emotional behavior. In
J. T. Cacioppo & R. E. Petty (Eds.), Social psychophysiology (pp. 215-
240). New York: Guilford.
Received March 21, 2003
Revision accepted September 8, 2003

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

http://psp.sagepub.

You might also like