Do Big Five Personality Traits Associated With Self-Control Influence The Regulation of Anger and Aggression?

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp
1 Do Big Five personality traits associated with

2 self-control inXuence the regulation of anger
3
and aggression? 夽
4 Lauri A. Jensen-Campbell ¤, Jennifer M. Knack,
5 Amy M. Waldrip, Shaun D. Campbell
6 Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Arlington, Box 19528, Arlington, TX 76019-0528, USA
8 Abstract
9 This study examined whether Big Five personality traits associated with the ability to exhibit self-
10 control would moderate the anger–aggression link. A total of 126 participants (63 women) completed
11 personality measures. In a separate experimental session, participants wrote an essay and then received
12 either positive or negative feedback from a Wctitious participant. Participants were given the opportu-
13 nity to aggress against the supposed other person. Baseline and post-experimental emotions were
14 assessed. EEG was recorded to measure activity in midfrontal, lateral-frontal, and parietal areas.
15 Results replicated previous Wndings that anger is associated with left relative to right prefrontal asym-
16 metry and aggression. Conscientiousness was negatively associated with anger and relative left prefron-
17 tal asymmetry. Conscientiousness also moderated the link between anger and aggression. Agreeableness
18 was positively associated with anger, but only when levels of conscientiousness were low.
19 © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
20 Keywords: Big Five; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness; Anger regulation; Prefrontal asymmetry; Aggression
夽
We thank Eddie Harmon-Jones for providing the aggression paradigm information. We thank Ryan Adams,
Gary Lautenschlager, William Graziano, James Erickson, James Long, Anita Miller, and Wendi Gardner for
their comments and advice. We thank the UTA Personality and Social Behavior Lab, especially Nichole Bryant,
Katie Gleason, Sarah Chan, Melissa Cook, Jamie Jones, Owen Temple, and Larry Carter. We also thank Andres
Campbell for his countless hours as a practice participant.
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +1 817 272 2364.
E-mail address: Lcampbell@uta.edu (L.A. Jensen-Campbell).
0092-6566/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.05.001
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx
21 1. Introduction
22 In every society, self-control is important for getting along with others. It has even been
23 suggested that the overarching purpose of self-control in humans is inherently social in
24 nature (Barkley, 2001). A person who cannot control his or her thoughts, feelings, or
25 behaviors is more likely to lash out in anger when frustrated, handle conXicts less construc-
26 tively, and engage in antisocial behavior (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). Even nonaggressive
27 children who have attentional problems often have diYculty giving situationally appropri-
28 ate responses and have diYculty modulating their behavior to meet the social demands of
29 the situation (Landau & Milich, 1988). Conversely, individuals who are able to control
30 their behaviors should receive numerous beneWts from their social relations within the
31 group such as belongingness, peer acceptance, higher quality relationships, and even pro-
32 tection from victimization (Jensen-Campbell & Malcolm, 2004; Vohs & Ciarocco, 2004).
33 Research has indeed found associations between attentional processes, emotion-related
34 regulation, and social behavior. For example, preschoolers’ attentional control was associ-
35 ated with constructive anger reactions (Eisenberg, Fabes, Nyman, Bernzweig, & Pinuelas,
36 1994). Additionally, Eisenberg et al. (1995) found that high attentional control in elemen-
37 tary school boys predicted socially appropriate behavior. Teacher and parent reports of
38 behavioral regulation were also associated with lower levels of aggressive and disruptive
39 behavior. Similarly, Belsky, Friedman, and Hsieh (2001) found that early attentional con-
40 trol moderates the association between negative emotionality and social competence.
41 The purpose of this study was to examine whether Big Five personality dimensions
42 associated with self-control, namely agreeableness and conscientiousness, inXuence emo-
43 tional and behavioral responses when individuals were confronted with a frustrating inter-
44 personal situation. If frustration is a major instigator of aggression (Berkowitz, 1968), an
45 important mechanism that inhibits aggressive behavior may be the ability to exhibit self-
46 control in frustrating situations. Many studies have found that anger is often directly asso-
47 ciated with aggression when other defensive motivations are absent (e.g., Berkowitz, 1993;
48 Richardson et al., 1998). For example, Harmon-Jones and Sigelman (2001) have found that
49 relative left prefrontal cortical activity is associated with state-induced anger, which in turn
50 predicted oVensive aggression.
51 Previous research has focused primarily on “main eVect” models of anger and aggres-
52 sion (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Anderson & Carnagey, 2004). Interactive models, on
53 the other hand, allow for the exploration of moderator or “buVer” variables that inXuence
54 these associations. We were speciWcally interested in whether conscientiousness and agree-
55 ableness moderated the contributions of anger to aggression. Individuals who have the
56 ability to eVortfully shift and focus their attention may be less likely to aggress when
57 angered than individuals who have less self-control. In other words, the behavioral and
58 cognitive control capacities associated with conscientiousness and agreeableness may aid
59 in weakening the anger–aggression link. Agreeable and conscientious individuals may be
60 better able to suppress the dominant or prepotent response to be angry and oVensively
61 aggressive when involved in a frustrating situation.
62 1.1. Self-control and personality
63 Rothbart and Bates (1998) and Rothbart and Posner (1985) suggest that self-regulation,
64 also termed eVortful control (EC), involves constitutionally based executive control
ARTICLE IN PRESS
L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 3
65 processes that regulate behavior reactivity (e.g., emotionality). Early appearing individual
66 diVerences in the ability to sustain and shift attention as well as the ability to initiate and
67 inhibit actions voluntarily have been associated with EC. EVortful control has been further
68 associated with the ability to suppress a dominant or prepotent behavior (Kochanska,
69 Murray, & Harlan, 2000) or even another opposing dominant response that would better
70 maintain subjective well being (Larsen & Prizmic, 2004). Overall, self-control should allow
71 individuals to resist the immediate inXuences of the situation; individuals higher on self-
72 control should be able to control their emotional aVect (e.g., anger), avoid lashing out
73 in situations that are frustrating, or even approach frightful situations when necessary.
74 A developmental connection between early appearing self-control processes and later
75 personality processes has been documented in numerous studies. Rothbart, Chew, and
76 Gartstein (2001) have found that conscientiousness is highly correlated with the adult tem-
77 peramental factor of eVortful attention. Ahadi and Rothbart (1994) note that conscien-
78 tiousness is composed of numerous characteristics associated with self-regulation. For
79 example, both conscientiousness and self-regulation are characterized by the ability to
80 eVortfully direct one’s attention, the ability to inhibit certain behaviors to execute alternate
81 behaviors, and the ability to persist in tasks. Conscientiousness has also been related to a
82 broad band of performance standards, including elementary school grades (e.g., Digman &
83 Inouye, 1986), middle school grades (Jensen-Campbell, 2006), performance at work and
84 industrial settings (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991), driving accident involvement (Arthur &
85 Graziano, 1996), prosocial behavior (Abe, 2005), and even success in interpersonal rela-
86 tionships (Jensen-Campbell & Malcolm, 2006). Furthermore, people high in conscientious-
87 ness are able to persist at a tedious task for a longer duration than people lower in
88 conscientiousness (Sansone, Wiebe, & Morgan, 1999).
89 Agreeableness has also been linked to eVortful control (Ahadi & Rothbart, 1994). It has
90 been suggested that agreeableness is motivational in maintaining positive relationships
91 with others. Indeed, it is believed that inhibitory processes are needed to control selWsh, dis-
92 agreeable tendencies in group situations. For example, Havill, Besevegis, and Mouroussa-
93 ski (1998) deWne agreeableness as the ability to inhibit disagreeable tendencies. Compared
94 to their peers, high agreeable individuals do indeed respond to interpersonal conXict more
95 constructively (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996; Jensen-Campbell, Graziano, &
96 Hair, 1996), cooperate more productively during interdependent group tasks (Graziano,
97 Hair, & Finch, 1997) and are described by their parents has exhibiting more competent
98 social skills (Jensen-Campbell, 2006).
99 Direct links between agreeableness and eVortful control processes have also been found.
100 For example, agreeableness is predictive of eVorts to control one’s emotions in both adults
101 and children (Tobin & Graziano, 2006; Tobin, Graziano, & Vanman, 2000). In addition,
102 Jensen-Campbell et al. (2002) found that agreeableness uniquely predicts Stroop perfor-
103 mance, which is believed to be a measure of executive control ability. Finally, agreeableness
104 has been linked with orienting sensitivity, which is related with associative sensitivity as
105 well as sensitivity to internal, aVective, and external perception (Rothbart et al., 2001).
106 Recent research has found that both agreeableness and conscientiousness were associ-
107 ated with resistance to temptation in early adolescence (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano,
108 2005). SpeciWcally, Jensen-Campbell and Graziano found that in situations with mixed
109 messages about cheating, high conscientious children were less likely to cheat than were
110 children low in conscientiousness. In addition, they found that when cheating was clearly
111 conveyed to be “wrong,” children high in teacher-rated agreeableness cheated less than
ARTICLE IN PRESS
112 children low on teacher-rated agreeableness did. Finally, adolescents who were low in both
113 agreeableness and conscientiousness were the most likely to cheat (see Fig. 1, Jensen-
114 Campbell & Graziano, 2005).
115 In addition, both agreeableness and conscientiousness have been associated with tradi-
116 tional clinical assessments associated with poor regulation, namely attention deWcit hyper-
117 activity disorder (ADHD). It should be noted that ADHD is believed to be a disorder that
118 involves poor inhibitory control (Barkley, 2001). Using the Child Behavior Checklist
119 (CBCL), parents report greater attention problems and more behaviors associated with
120 ADHD for children who were low on agreeableness and conscientiousness (Jensen-Camp-
121 bell, 2006). Similarly, Nigg, Blaskey, Huang-Pollock, and Rappley (2002) found that both
122 conscientiousness and agreeableness were diVerentially associated with ADHD symptom
123 clusters. For instance, conscientiousness predicted inattention-disorganization, whereas
124 agreeableness was associated with hyperactivity-impulsivity and oppositional deWant
125 behaviors.
126 1.2. Neural correlates of self-control
127 Self-control processes, such as emotional control and attention, have been associated
128 with prefrontal cortex functioning (Coan & Allen, 2004; Goldberg, 2001). For example,
129 individuals who suVer injuries to the prefrontal cortex often suVer from poorer emotional
130 control (Fuster, 1989; Harmon-Jones, 2004). Numerous studies have also found an associ-
131 ation between left anterior brain activity and the behavioral activation system, and right
132 anterior brain activity and the behavioral inhibition system. Moreover, this brain asymme-
133 try is remarkably stable across time (Tomarken, Davidson, Wheeler, & Kinney, 1992). Har-
134 mon-Jones and Allen (1998) and Harmon-Jones and Sigelman (2001) have found that
135 greater left prefrontal brain activity, in comparison to right prefrontal brain activity, is
136 related to self-reported anger, a negatively valenced approach emotion. In addition, Har-
137 mon-Jones (2004) has found evidence of a direct link between a person’s behavioral
138 approach orientation and anger responses. Persons with strong approach orientations are
139 more likely to experience anger than are persons with weaker approach orientations.
140 Not only is frontal activation asymmetry related to emotion, but it is also related to
141 actual social behavior. For example, Fox et al. (1995) have found that frontal activation
142 asymmetry was related to social competence in preschool children. D’Alfonso, van Honk,
143 Hermans, Postma, and de Haan (2000) also found that college women were more likely to
144 attend to angry faces when there was increased activation in the left prefrontal cortex.
145 Conversely, the women were less attentive to angry faces with increased right frontal acti-
146 vation.
147 1.3. The present study
148 The link between agreeableness and conscientiousness to both prefrontal cortical activ-
149 ity and emotional/behavioral regulation was examined. We were speciWcally interested in
150 how individuals handle frustration that comes from receiving negative feedback. Some the-
151 orists may argue that self-control is almost a deWnitional part of agreeableness and consci-
152 entiousness. For example, one of the presumed facets of conscientiousness on the NEO is
153 deliberation (i.e., considering the consequences before taking action; McCrae & Costa,
154 1996). Other researchers (e.g., Block, 1995), however, have pointed to deWciencies in the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
155 Wve-factor approach as a general perspective on personality structure. Despite the theoreti-
156 cal links between self-regulation and personality, there has been little research that directly
157 examines these links, especially in terms of prefrontal cortex (PFC) functioning. If agree-
158 ableness and conscientiousness involve individual diVerences in executive attention and
159 emotional regulation, there should be evidence of diVerences in prefrontal cortex function-
160 ing, especially when confronted with frustrating situations.
161 This study was designed to answer two key empirical questions: (1) Are conscientious-
162 ness and agreeableness related to anger and aggressive responses; and (2) Do these person-
163 ality traits moderate the link between anger and aggression? We speciWcally examined the
164 role of PFC asymmetry and its association to agreeableness and conscientiousness. It was
165 anticipated that individuals lower in conscientiousness and agreeableness will exhibit more
166 left relative to right prefrontal brain asymmetry, will report more anger, and will aggress
167 more, but only when they are confronted with a situation that requires greater self-control
168 (i.e., when they receive negative feedback from another person). Second, we anticipated an
169 important buVering inXuence associated with agreeableness and conscientiousness. That is,
170 it was expected that the known link between anger and aggression would only hold for per-
171 sons low on agreeableness and conscientiousness. In other words, even if persons higher on
172 agreeableness and conscientiousness experience the same or greater levels of anger than
173 persons lower on these dimensions, the association between anger and aggression will be
174 weaker for persons higher on agreeableness and conscientiousness because of their greater
175 eVortful control capabilities.
176 This is not to say that other Big Five personality constructs, such as extraversion and neu-
177 roticism, are not important for understanding the anger–aggression link. Extraversion
178 involves surgency, sociability, and social interest (Elphick, Halverson, & Marszal-Wis-
179 niewska, 1998). Indeed, Shiner (2000) has found that extroverted children are more compe-
180 tent in social situations than their less extroverted peers are. Thus, individuals higher in
181 extraversion may be less likely to experience anger when confronted with negative feedback
182 and may be less likely to aggress. Neuroticism, on the other hand, is related to a person’s
183 emotional stability. Neurotic individuals are often easily frustrated. Indeed, they have a ten-
184 dency to be hypersensitive to negative events, which may lead to greater negative aVect when
185 confronted with negative feedback from another person (Suls, Martin, & David, 1998).
186 2. Methods
187 2.1. Participants
188 Sixty-three men and 63 women participated for partial fulWllment of an Introductory
189 Psychology course requirement. The racial composition of the sample included 46.8% Cau-
190 casian, 23% Asian, 14.3% African American, 5.6% American Indian, and 10.3% other. Of
191 the participants, 15.1% indicated Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. The participants ranged in
192 age from 18.38 to 47.74 years (M D 21.24, SD D 4.03).
193 2.2. Materials
194 2.2.1. Measures of personality

195 To assess personality, participants completed both the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John,
196 Donahue, & Kentle, 1991) and Goldberg’s (1992) Trait Markers. The BFI is a 44-item
ARTICLE IN PRESS
197 inventory consisting of short phrases based on trait adjectives associated with each of the
198 Big Five personality factors (e.g., is helpful and unselWsh with others; is a reliable worker).
199 Participants rated the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement on a
200 Likert-type scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The BFI had respectable
201 reliabilities ranging from .71 (extroversion) to .80 (conscientiousness) as assessed by Cron-
202 bach’s . The for agreeableness was .74.
203 For Goldberg’s (1992) trait markers, participants rated the degree to which they agreed
204 or disagreed with 100 trait words (e.g., conscientious, agreeable) on a 5-point Likert-type
205 scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Instead of presenting the traits in bipolar
206 format, we separated the poles and presented them in unipolar format (i.e., 20 words for
207 each factor). DiVerence scores were computed for appropriate pairs (see Briggs, 1992, p.
208 268). Goldberg’s trait markers had strong reliabilities ranging from .74 (emotional stabil-
209 ity) to .88 (openness to experience). The Cronbach’s s for agreeableness and conscien-
210 tiousness were .80.
211 Our two assessments were highly correlated for extraversion (r(126) D .81, p < .01),
212 agreeableness (r(126) D .65, p < .01), conscientiousness (r(124) D .51, p > .01), emotional sta-
213 bility/neuroticism (r(124) D ¡.56, p < .01), and openness to experience (r(124) D .55, p < .01).
214 Given this convergence and that the focus of the paper was not to assess the convergent
215 and discriminate validity among Big Five measures, we chose to collapse across our per-
216 sonality assessments to make a unitary reliable assessment of each Big Five dimension. To
217 create these assessments, we standardized the scores on each Big Five dimension and then
218 averaged across the two assessments.
219 2.2.2. Measures of emotion

220 Participants rated themselves on 24 emotions at the beginning and at the end of the
221 study using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely).
222 Emotion words included angry, bad, irritable, annoyed, agitated, hostile, frustrated, afraid,
223 scared, nervous, jittery, good mood, happy, uplifted, alert, active, determined, enthusiastic,
224 excited, inspired, interested, proud, strong, and attentive. The Wrst assessment served as a
225 baseline measure and the second assessment served as a state measure of emotion. These
226 emotion words were identical to the ones used in Harmon-Jones and Sigelman (2001) (see
227 also Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Only the trait word anger was used for this study.1
228 2.3. EEG recordings
229 EEG acquisition followed standard guidelines (Pivik et al., 1993). An Electro-Cap was
230 positioned according to the 10–20 International System (Jasper, 1958). EEG was recorded
231 from mid-frontal (F3, F4), lateral-frontal (F7, F8), parietal (P3, P4), midline frontal (Fz),
232 and midline parietal (Pz) sites. EEG sites were recorded in reference to the left earlobe
233 (A1), and data were acquired from the right earlobe (A2) to derive digitally the averaged
234 ear reference (Hagemann, 2004). The isolated-common ground was the frontal pole site
235 (Fpz). The electrooculogram (EOG) was recorded with aYxed 6-mm tin electrodes to the
1
Additional analyses examined the other emotion words by creating three composites: negative aVect (angry,
bad, irritable, annoyed, agitated, hostile, frustrated), fear (afraid, scared, nervous, jittery), and positive aVect
(good mood, happy, uplifted, alert, active, determined, enthusiastic, excited, inspired, interested, proud, strong, at-
tentive). Only negative aVect, which included angry, produced expected diVerences among groups.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
236 right outer canthus and superior orbit to monitor eye movements. Scalp electrode imped-
237 ances were below 5 k, and left–right electrode pairs were within 1 k of each other, result-
238 ing in low electrical noise in the EEG signals.
239 Using hardware and software from the James Long Company (Caroga Lake, NY), we
240 collected baseline EEG data by having participants relax with the eyes open or closed for
241 alternating eight 1-min intervals. Participants were randomly assigned to start the baseline
242 with their eyes open or eyes closed. Data were also collected for 1 min following the labora-
243 tory task. The bioampliWer was set for band-pass Wltering with half power cutoV frequen-
244 cies of 1 and 200 Hz (12 dB/octave rolloV). The gain was 10,000 for EEG channels and 2500
245 for EOG channels. Data were digitized continuously at 1024 Hz.
246 2.4. Procedure
247 Participants came into the laboratory twice. In the Wrst session, they completed self-
248 report measures. To assess the Big Five, participants completed the BFI (John et al., 1991)
249 and Goldberg’s (1992) trait markers. Other measures were also collected for use in another
250 study, which helped disguise the true purpose of this study. At the end of the Wrst session,
251 interested right-handed participants were scheduled individually for the second session of
252 the study.
253 Several weeks later, participants were brought back to the lab. Following procedures
254 outlined by Harmon-Jones and Sigelman (2001), investigators told participants that they
255 would be involved in a perception study that would include both a person perception and a
256 taste perception segment. They were then told that there was another participant in an
257 adjacent room and that they would be working together on the perception tasks. In reality,
258 there was no second participant. The participant then completed an emotional assessment
259 questionnaire that served as a baseline measure.
260 Electrodes were then attached to the participant’s head, face, and ears following stan-
261 dard guidelines (Pivik et al., 1993). Participants were then told to relax, so the investigator
262 could obtain baseline measures of their brain’s electrical activity. Baseline electroencepha-
263 lographic (EEG) activity was recorded for eight 1-min alternating intervals with eyes open
264 and eyes closed. The participant was randomly assigned to begin baseline with either eyes
265 open or eyes closed. During the baseline recordings, participants were told to look straight
266 ahead while trying not to move their head and body during the recordings.
267 The participant was then told that he/she would be randomly assigned either to write an
268 essay on an important social issue or to give his/her perception of a person who wrote such
269 an essay. In fact, all participants were assigned to the role of writing the essay, which
270 involved writing a 5-min essay taking a stance (for/against) on a topic of their choice. The
271 topic choices were the legality of smoking in public places, a reduction in the legal drinking
272 age, increasing gun control measures, or an increase in tuition to support a campus beauti-
273 Wcation campaign. Participants were instructed to choose the topic that was most impor-
274 tant to them personally.
275 After the participant completed the essay, the investigator collected the envelope and
276 delivered it to a Wctitious “other” participant for evaluation. Individuals were randomly
277 assigned to receive either relatively positive or negative feedback on their essay from the
278 supposed other participant. The evaluation consisted of Likert-type ratings made by the
279 supposed other participant on several 9-point bipolar scales that gave his/her perception of
280 the actual participant, which included unintelligent–intelligent, thought-provoking–boring,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
281 friendly–unfriendly, illogical–logical, respectable–unrespectable, irrational–rational. For

282 the relatively negative rating, participants received ratings of 2 or 3 for assessments in
283 which 9 represented a positive rating; they received ratings of 7 for assessments in which
284 the positive words represented a 1. The relatively positive evaluation reversed these ratings.
285 In addition, participants received an additional handwritten comment from the alleged
286 other participant that corresponded with the positive or negative ratings (i.e., “I can under-
287 stand why a person would think like this. This person has obviously learned something
288 while at UTA.” or “I cannot understand why a person would think like this. I hope this
289 person learns something while at UTA.”).
290 The experimenter then returned and gave the participant their essay and the ratings/
291 comments from the Wctitious “other” participant. Once the participants read their ratings
292 and comments, an additional 1 min of EEG activity was recorded to measure the physio-
293 logical reaction. The participants were then told that they would start the second percep-
294 tion task (i.e., taste perception task), in which they would be randomly assigned to either
295 choose a drink that the other participant would have to consume in its entirety or to con-
296 sume a substance that the other participant had chosen for them and evaluate it on a list of
297 given characteristics.
298 Participants were told that it was very important for the experimenter to remain blind
299 to the type of taste to which the participant was exposed. One way to keep the experi-
300 menter blind to the taste is to have one participant assign the taste to the other partici-
301 pant. The investigator then checked their “randomization sheet” and stated that it
302 looked like the participant had been assigned to determine the drink choice. In actuality,
303 all participants were assigned to choose the taste for the “other” participant. The
304 researcher then left the room to prepare the “other” participant and to get the drink tray.
305 When the researcher returned with the drink tray, the participant was told that he/she
306 would choose between six drinks that the “other” participant had ranked from a longer
307 list of substances in order of preference. Each drink consists of 11 oz. of water with 1, 2,
308 or 3 teaspoons of sugar, apple juice, lemon juice, salt, vinegar, or hot sauce mixed into
309 the water.
310 Participants were to choose a substance and then pour some of each of the three con-
311 centrations into one of the three cups provided. They were then told to cover the unused
312 beverage choices with a cloth, so the experimenter would be blind to the drink choice. The
313 choice of beverage signiWed the level of aggression that the participant chose to engage in.
314 In other words, each substance was given a value ranging from 1 (most pleasant) to 6 (most
315 aversive). Finally, the participant completed a second emotional assessment. Electrodes
316 were then removed and the participant was debriefed.
317 2.5. EEG analysis
318 EEG was used to assess left (relative to right) prefrontal brain asymmetry and left (rela-
319 tive to right) parietal brain asymmetry. The EEG data were visually inspected to identify
320 epochs containing ocular and other artifacts. Using the most commonly used method to
321 remove EEG artifact (Hagemann, 2004), we excluded artifact-contaminated epochs from
322 the analysis. An average of 98.54 artifact-free epochs for each minute were obtained in the
323 8-min baseline EEG recording, in addition to an average 88.53 artifact-free epochs that
324 were obtained from the 1-min experimental EEG recording. The artifact-free epochs for
325 each participant were at least greater than 13 artifact-free epochs.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
326 Data were digitally transformed from an A1-reference to an average-ears reference, and
327 then the Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) was applied to each 1-min recording period.
328 Hanning windows identiWed 1.00-s epochs of artifact-free data in each recording period,
329 and epochs were overlapped by 50%. Spectral power from 1 Hz bins was clustered into
330 broad bands. The band of primary interest was alpha (7.5–13.5 Hz), given that previous
331 asymmetry and emotion results pertain speciWcally to this band. Alpha power (pW) was
332 averaged across baseline. Asymmetry metrics were computed as the ratio of right alpha
333 power to left alpha power (Hagemann, 2004).2 Given that alpha power varies inversely
334 with cortical activation, alpha suppression reXects increased brain activity, and higher
335 asymmetry values represent greater left relative to right activation.
336 3. Results
337 First, we anticipated that persons in the negative feedback condition would report more
338 anger, show greater left relative to right prefrontal asymmetry, and show greater levels of
339 aggression (i.e., more negative drink choices) than persons in the positive feedback condi-
340 tion (Hypothesis 1a). Next, we examined the correlations among our measures of anger
341 and aggression (Hypothesis 1b). It was anticipated that self-reported anger would be posi-
342 tively associated with prefrontal asymmetry in the post-experimental conditions, but not
343 with baseline or parietal measures. It was also anticipated that self-reported anger and pre-
344 frontal asymmetry would be positively correlated with drink choice, especially in the nega-
345 tive feedback condition.
346 Second, we examined whether agreeableness and conscientiousness predicted reports of
347 anger in the negative feedback condition (Hypothesis 2a). Anger was assessed with both
348 self-report measures and prefrontal brain asymmetry. It was anticipated that conscientious
349 and agreeable participants would report less anger and show less left relative to right pre-
350 frontal brain asymmetry than persons lower on conscientiousness and agreeableness do
351 when they receive negative feedback. In addition, it was anticipated that conscientiousness
352 and agreeableness would predict aversive drink choice (Hypothesis 2b).
353 Finally, we examined whether conscientiousness and agreeableness moderated the link
354 between anger and aversive drink choice (Hypothesis 3). It was anticipated that the anger–
355 aggression link would hold only for persons lower on Big Five personality traits associated
356 with self-control. In other words, it was anticipated that anger would only predict drink
357 choice for individuals who were lower on agreeableness and conscientiousness.
358 Hypothesis 1a. To assess whether feedback inXuenced anger, we conducted two 2 (positive
359 vs. negative feedback) £ 2 (sex of participant) ANOVAs. The dependent measures were
360 self-reported baseline and post-experimental measures of anger, mid-frontal asymmetry,
361 lateral-frontal asymmetry, parietal asymmetry, as well as beverage drink choice.3
2
Typically, natural log transformations are taken for each EEG site to normalize data. Taking the natural log
of each site created unacceptable levels of kurtosis (>30) and skewness (>¡3.77). Using our raw data, we created
ratiometric scores (e.g., F4 alpha power/F3 alpha power) to assess asymmetry while controlling for individual
diVerences in skull morphology.
3
Supplementary analyses were conducted in which either baseline anger or baseline asymmetry was used as a
covariate in the analysis (i.e., ANCOVA). The results held for self-reported anger; the pattern of results was simi-
lar, but nonsigniWcant for lateral-frontal asymmetry.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
362 We found that persons who received negative feedback were more angry (M D 2.02,
363 SD D 1.10) than persons in the positive feedback condition (M D 1.25, SD D .63),
364 F(1,121) D 28.98, p < .001, 2 D .19. There was no signiWcant diVerence between our experi-
365 mental groups on baseline measures of self-reported anger, F(1,122) D .39, ns, 2 D .003
366 (M D 1.39, 1.34, SD D .82, .71, for negative and positive conditions, respectively).
367 Participants in the negative feedback condition showed greater left lateral-frontal activ-
368 ity (M D 1.09, SD D .19) than did persons in the positive feedback condition (M D 1.02,
369 SD D .23), F(1,120) D 3.04, p < .05, one-tailed, 2 D .025. There were no signiWcant diVerences
370 between experimental groups for baseline measures of lateral-frontal activity,
371 F(1,120) D 2.19, ns, 2 D .018 (M D 1.05, 1.00, SD D .19, .17, for negative and positive condi-
372 tions, respectively).
373 Contrary to our predictions, however, there were no signiWcant diVerences between
374 experimental conditions on left relative to right mid-frontal activity, F(1,120) D .02, ns,
375 2 D .000. As anticipated, participants in the negative feedback condition showed no
376 greater left parietal activity (M D 1.06, SD D .23) than did persons in the positive feedback
377 condition (M D 1.08, SD D .31), F(1,120) D .01, ns, 2 D .000. There were also no diVerences
378 between groups on baseline measures of mid-frontal and parietal activity F(1,120) D .22,
379 1.84, p D .64, .18, respectively.
380 Finally, we examined whether the experimental condition inXuenced aversive drink
381 choice. Results showed that persons in the negative feedback condition chose more aver-
382 sive drinks for the other participant (M D 4.03, SD D 1.73) than did persons who were in
383 the positive feedback condition (M D 2.58, SD D 1.21), F(1,122) D 28.63, p < .001, 2 D .19.
384 There were no main eVects or interactions associated with the sex of the participant for any
385 of our anger or aggression measures.
386 Hypothesis 1b. Next, we examined the correlations among our baseline and post-experi-
387 mental measures (see Tables 1 and 2). Self-reported anger was associated with left relative
388 to right prefrontal asymmetry, r(124) D .22, .16, p < .02, .08 (for mid-frontal and lateral-
389 frontal, respectively). The relation between mid-frontal and self-reported anger only held
390 in the negative feedback condition (see Table 2; r D .34, p < .01). As anticipated, there was
391 no evidence that parietal asymmetry was related to self-reported anger across conditions,
Table 1
Correlations among baseline and post-experimental measures
Post-experimental measures
Beverage choice Anger Mid-frontal Lateral-frontal Parietal Anger (baseline)
Post-experimental measures
Anger 0.33¤¤
Mid-frontal 0.04 0.22¤
Lateral-frontal 0.18¤ 0.169 0.30¤¤
Parietal asymmetry ¡0.01 0.03 0.11 0.06
Baseline measures
Anger 0.09 0.53¤¤ 0.08 0.12 0.07
Mid-frontal ¡0.08 0.05 0.65¤¤ 0.23¤ 0.06 ¡0.12
Lateral-frontal 0.01 ¡0.02 0.14 0.62¤¤ 0.01 ¡0.05
Parietal asymmetry ¡0.12 ¡0.01 0.21¤ 0.05 0.50¤¤ ¡0.01
Note: ¤p < .05; ¤¤p < .01; 9p < .05, one-tailed.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2
Correlations among post-experimental measures by type of feedback
Post experimental measures Beverage Anger Mid-frontal Lateral-frontal
choice asymmetry asymmetry
Negative feedback (N D 60)
Anger 0.31¤¤
Mid-frontal asymmetry 0.14 0.34¤¤
Lateral-frontal asymmetry 0.219 0.08 0.27¤¤
Parietal asymmetry 0.10 0.249 0.19 0.20
Positive feedback (N D 64)
Anger ¡0.07
Mid-frontal asymmetry ¡0.16 0.03
Lateral-frontal asymmetry 0.05 0.16 0.35¤¤
Parietal asymmetry ¡0.10 ¡0.19 0.05 ¡0.02
Note: ¤¤p < .01; 9p < .05, one-tailed.
392 r(124) D .03, ns. Self-reported anger was associated with aversive drink choice (r(126) D .33,
393 p < .01) and this association held only for the negative feedback condition (r(60) D .31,
394 p < .01). Baseline measures of anger were not associated with each other or with the aggres-
395 sive behavior of the participant, r < 冷.13冷 (see Table 1). However, baseline self-reported
396 anger was signiWcantly correlated with post-experimental self-reported anger, r(126) D .53,
397 p < .01. In addition, mid-frontal and lateral-frontal asymmetry were highly correlated from
398 pre- to post-observations, r(123) D .65, .62, p < .01, respectively. Likewise, parietal asymme-
399 try was highly correlated from pre- to post-observations, r(123) D .50, p < .01.
400 Overall, the pattern of results suggests that self-reported anger was associated with pre-
401 frontal asymmetry. First, participants in the negative feedback condition reported more
402 anger and showed greater lateral-frontal asymmetry. Second, self-reported anger was also
403 associated with both mid-frontal and lateral-frontal asymmetry across conditions. In addi-
404 tion, mid-frontal asymmetry was associated with anger in the negative feedback condition,
405 but not in the positive feedback condition. As previous research has found, there was also
406 stability between our baseline and post-experimental ratings of anger. Finally, type of feed-
407 back predicted aversive drink choice; persons in the negative feedback condition chose
408 more aversive drinks. Moreover, anger and lateral-frontal asymmetry predicted drink
409 choice in the negative feedback condition.
410 Hypothesis 2. The main purpose of this research, however, was to determine if Big Five person-
411 ality dimensions associated with self-control inXuence emotional and behavioral responses
412 when individuals are confronted with a frustrating situation. Subsequent analyses were run
413 separately by condition because of power issues associated with detecting three-way interac-
414 tions (see Aiken & West, 1991, p. 139). Hierarchical regression analyses were performed to
415 determine the unique predictiveness of agreeableness and conscientiousness. Extroversion,
416 emotional stability, and openness to experience were centered and entered on the Wrst step as
417 control variables; agreeableness, conscientiousness, and their cross-product was then entered
418 on the second step. Criterion measures included drink choice as well as baseline and post-levels
419 of anger, mid-frontal asymmetry, lateral-frontal asymmetry, and parietal asymmetry.
420 For self-reported anger, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and their cross-product pro-
421 duced a signiWcant increase in variance explained over the other three Big Five dimensions in
ARTICLE IN PRESS
422 the negative feedback condition, F(3,54) D 4.67, p < .01, R2 D .20. Conscientiousness was
423 uniquely and negatively related to self-reported anger B D ¡.51, t(54) D ¡2.44, p < .02,
424 sr2 D .08. Agreeableness, however, was not related to self-reports of anger in the predicted
425 direction, B D .39, t(54) D 1.96, p < .06 (see Table 3). There was, however, an
426 agreeableness £ conscientiousness interaction for self-reported anger in the negative feedback
427 condition, t(54) D ¡2.50, ¡2.88, p < .02, sr2 D .09. Using procedures outlined by Aiken and
428 West (1991), we found that agreeableness was positively related to self-reported anger when
429 conscientiousness was low (¡1 SD), B D .71, sr2 D .14, ts(54) D 3.21, p < .01. When conscien-
430 tiousness was high, there was no evidence that agreeableness was associated with self-
431 reported anger, B D .07, ts(54) D .29, sr2 D .001, ns. There was no evidence that agreeableness
432 and conscientiousness predicted self-reported anger in the positive feedback condition
433 (p > .10) (see Table 3).
434 For lateral-frontal asymmetry, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and their cross-prod-
435 uct also produced a signiWcant increase in variance explained over the other three Big Five
436 dimensions in the negative feedback condition, F(3,53) D 2.70, p < .01, R2 D .12. Consci-
437 entiousness was related to lateral-frontal activity in the predicted direction, B D ¡.06,
438 sr2 D .04, t(53) D ¡1.76, p < .05, one-tailed. There was again no evidence that agreeableness
439 was related to lateral-frontal activity in the predicted direction, t(53) D 1.45, p D .15. There
440 was an agreeableness £ conscientiousness interaction for lateral-frontal activity in the neg-
441 ative feedback condition, t(53) D ¡1.99, p < .05, sr2 D .06. Again, we found that agreeable-
442 ness was positively related to prefrontal asymmetry when conscientiousness was low (¡1
443 SD), B D .10 sr2 D .09, t(53) D 2.45, p < .02. When conscientiousness was high, there was no
444 evidence that agreeableness was associated with prefrontal asymmetry, B D .01, t(53) D .14,
445 sr2 D .0002, ns. There was no evidence that agreeableness and conscientiousness predicted
446 lateral-frontal activity in the positive feedback condition (p > .10) (see Table 3).
Table 3
B-weights and semi-partial correlations: the Big Five dimensions of personality predicting post-experimental
levels of anger and aggression
Anger Lateral-frontal Mid-frontal Parietal Beverage
asymmetry asymmetry asymmetry choice
Negative condition (N D 59)
Extroversion 0.13 (0.09) 0.00 (0.01) 0.01(0.07) 0.07 (0.23) 0.60 (0.27)¤
Emotional stability ¡0.31 (¡0.20) 0.02 (0.06) ¡0.06 (¡0.29)¤ 0.02 (0.06) 0.04 (0.02)
Openness to experience 0.05 (0.03) 0.08 (0.30)¤ 0.05 (0.23) ¡0.02 (¡0.07) ¡0.10 (¡0.04)
Conscientiousness ¡0.51 (¡0.29)¤ ¡0.06 (¡0.21)9 ¡0.03 (¡0.12) ¡0.05 (¡0.14) 0.12 (0.04)
Agreeableness 0.39 (0.23) 0.05 (0.18) 0.04 (0.19) 0.09 (0.26)¤ 0.19 (0.07)
Conscientiousness ¡0.37 (¡0.30)¤ ¡0.05 (¡0.24)¤ ¡0.01 (¡0.06) 0.02 (0.07) ¡0.17 (¡0.09)
£ agreeableness
Positive condition (N D 64)
Extroversion 0.08 (0.10) 0.07 (0.25)¤ 0.01 (0.06) ¡0.04 (¡0.11) ¡0.03 (¡0.02)
Emotional stability ¡0.26 (¡0.30)¤ ¡0.00 (¡0.00) 0.02 (0.14) 0.08 (0.20) ¡0.15 (¡0.09)
Openness to experience 0.13 (0.17) ¡0.08 (¡0.29)¤ ¡0.05 (¡0.35)¤¤ ¡0.06 (¡0.16) 0.29 (0.19)
Conscientiousness 0.12 (0.12) 0.03 (0.09) 0.02 (0.10) 0.04 (0.08) ¡0.12 (¡0.06)
Agreeableness ¡0.13 (¡0.16) ¡0.04 (¡0.13) ¡0.01 (¡0.07) ¡0.08 (¡0.20) 0.02 (0.01)
Conscientiousness 0.10 (0.11) ¡0.01 (¡0.03) ¡0.04 (¡0.21) ¡0.03 (¡0.07) 0.14 (0.08)
£ agreeableness
Note: srs are in parentheses; ¤ < .05; ¤¤p < .01; 9p < .04, one-tailed direction prediction.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
447 As expected, there was no evidence that conscientiousness was systematically related to
448 parietal asymmetry in the negative feedback condition, t(53) D ¡1.14, p D .26. However,
449 agreeableness was positively associated with parietal activity, t(53) D 2.06, p < .05. Neither
450 agreeableness nor conscientiousness predicted parietal activity in the positive feedback
451 condition, t(57) D ¡1.61, .67, p D .11, .51, respectively. Conscientiousness did not systemati-
452 cally predict outcomes for baseline measures of anger in the negative feedback condition,
453 t(53) D ¡1.15. ¡.54, ¡1.62, p D .25, .59, .11 for self-reported anger, mid-frontal asymmetry,
454 lateral-frontal asymmetry, respectively. Similarly, agreeableness was not signiWcantly asso-
455 ciated with baseline measures of anger in the negative feedback condition, t < .74, ns.
456 Next, we conducted supplementary analyses to examine the contribution of each hemi-
457 sphere separately in the lateral-frontal region. The asymmetry measures are useful to
458 understand diVerences in alpha power while controlling for skull thickness. However, they
459 do not allow us to understand which hemisphere is contributing to the asymmetrical diVer-
460 ences. We wanted to evaluate further whether conscientious individuals had more activa-
461 tion in their right hemisphere (i.e., the hemisphere associated with avoidant emotions) or
462 whether they simply had less activation in their left hemisphere (i.e., the hemisphere associ-
463 ated with approach emotions) when confronted with a frustrating situation.
464 To assess the eVects of each hemisphere separately while controlling for skull morphol-
465 ogy, we followed procedures outline by Wheeler, Davidson, and Tomarken (1993) and
466 Harmon-Jones, Vaughn-Scott, Mohr, Sigelman, and Harmon-Jones (2004). The alpha
467 power at one site (e.g., F7) was regressed onto the alpha power at all sites and the alpha
468 power at the homologous site (e.g., F8). The residual was then used as our new dependent
469 measure. For these analyses, it is important to understand that an increase in alpha power
470 is conversely related to cortical activity.
471 For left lateral-frontal activity, conscientiousness was negatively associated with corti-
472 cal activity (B D .91, sr2 D .09, t(53) D 2.48, p < .02). On the other hand, agreeableness was
473 positively associated with left lateral-frontal activity in the negative feedback condition
474 (B D ¡.73, sr2 D .06, t(53) D ¡2.06, p < .04). However, there was an agreeableness
475 £ conscientiousness interaction, t(53) D 2.56, p < .01. When conscientiousness was low,
476 agreeableness predicted left lateral-frontal activity, B D ¡1.31, sr2 D .16, t(53) D ¡3.33,
477 p < .02. When conscientiousness was high, agreeableness was not related to left lateral-fron-
478 tal activity, B D ¡.15, t(53) D ¡.35, ns.
479 For right lateral-frontal activity, conscientiousness was positively associated with corti-
480 cal activity in the negative feedback condition (B D ¡1.02, sr2 D .07, t(53) D ¡2.16, p < .04).
481 There was also an agreeableness £ conscientiousness interaction, t(53) D ¡1.94, p < .057.
482 When conscientiousness was low, agreeableness was negatively related to right lateral-
483 frontal activity, B D .94, sr2 D .05, t(53) D 1.86, p < .05, one-tailed. When conscientiousness
484 was high, this relationship did not hold, B D ¡.19, t(53) D ¡.33, ns. There was no evidence
485 of lateral prefrontal hemispheric diVerences for the other Big Five dimensions or in the
486 positive feedback condition. In sum, it appears that both the right and left hemispheres
487 were contributing to individual diVerences in prefrontal asymmetry.
488 Hypothesis 2b. Next, we examined whether personality was directly associated with aggres-
489 sive behavior. Unexpectedly, we found no evidence that agreeableness and conscientious-
490 ness inXuenced aversive drink choice in the negative feedback condition. First, there was
491 no appreciable change in R2 when agreeableness, conscientiousness, and their cross-prod-
492 uct were added to the equation, F(3,54) D .49, ns, R2 D .02. Neither agreeableness nor
ARTICLE IN PRESS
493 conscientiousness was uniquely associated with aversive drink choice, t(54) D .56, .34, ns
494 (see Table 3 for B-weights). However, extraversion was positively associated with aversive
495 drink choice. Persons higher on extraversion chose more aversive drinks in the negative
496 feedback condition, t(54) D 2.06, p < .05.
497 In sum, conscientiousness was negatively associated with two of the three post-experi-
498 mental measures of anger in the negative feedback condition. Agreeableness was positively
499 associated with two of the three post-experimental measures of anger, but only when con-
500 scientiousness was low and when negative feedback was provided. As anticipated, neither
501 agreeableness nor conscientiousness predicted anger during baseline or when receiving
502 positive feedback. Contrary to our expectations, however, neither agreeableness nor con-
503 scientiousness was directly related to aversive drink choice.
504 There was no consistent pattern for the other Big Five dimensions (see Table 3). For
505 example, openness to experience was associated with prefrontal asymmetry but not self-
506 reported anger in the positive feedback condition. Emotional stability was negatively asso-
507 ciated with self-reported anger but not measures of prefrontal asymmetry in the positive
508 feedback condition. Conversely, emotional stability was negative related to mid-frontal
509 asymmetry in the negative feedback condition, but not with lateral-frontal asymmetry or
510 self-reported anger. Finally, extraversion was related to drink choice but not measures of
511 anger in the negative feedback condition.
512 Hypothesis 3. Next, we examined whether conscientiousness and agreeableness moderated
513 the link between anger and aggression separately for each condition. To control for base-
514 line levels in these analyses, we created new measures of anger and prefrontal asymmetry.
515 We regressed the baseline score from the post-experimental score (Appelbaum & McCall,
516 1983). The standardized residual scores were then used as a new measure of post-experi-
517 mental emotion that controlled for baseline levels. Using moderated multiple regression,
518 four of the Big Five dimensions were entered on the Wrst step as control variables. Either
519 agreeableness or conscientiousness and self-reported anger (controlling for baseline) were
520 entered on the second step; and the cross-product was entered on the Wnal step.4
521 As anticipated, there was a conscientiousness £ anger interaction in the negative feed-
522 back condition, t(53) D ¡2.12, p < .04, sr2 D .08. When persons were lower on conscientious-
523 ness, anger was associated with aversive drink choice. When persons were higher on
524 conscientiousness, there was no association between anger and aversive drink choice (see
525 Table 4). Although weaker and not statistically signiWcant, there was a similar pattern of
526 eVects for conscientiousness £ mid-frontal asymmetry (controlling for baseline) in the neg-
527 ative feedback condition, B D ¡.40, t(51) D ¡1.56, p D .12, sr2 D .02. Again, when persons
528 were lower on conscientious, mid-frontal activity was associated with aversive drink choice
529 (see Table 4). As anticipated, the Wnding that conscientiousness moderated the anger–
530 aggression link held only for the negative feedback condition.
4
Additional moderated multiple regression models were run that examined other possible models. One model
examined the possible three-way interaction between agreeableness, conscientiousness, and anger predicting ag-
gression. There was no evidence of any signiWcant three-way interactions. Second, the possible interactive inXu-
ence of extraversion and emotional stability was examined. There was no evidence that either extroversion or
emotional stability moderated the association between anger and aggression. Moreover, there was no evidence
that these dimensions moderated the conscientiousness £ anger or agreeableness £ anger interactions.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
531 There was no evidence that agreeableness moderated the anger–aggression link
532 (t(53) D ¡1.20, ¡1.28, p D .23, .21 for self-reported anger and mid-frontal asymmetry, respec-
533 tively). However, the associations were in the predicted direction (see Table 4). In other
534 words, the slope of the line between anger–aggression and mid-frontal asymmetry-aggression
535 were signiWcantly diVerent from zero, but only when persons reported low or medium levels
536 of agreeableness. However, there was no evidence that the slopes were signiWcantly diVerent
537 from one another across levels of agreeableness (i.e., the cross-product was not signiWcant).
538 To examine the moderating inXuence of conscientiousness further, we divided partici-
539 pants into high and low conscientious types using median split procedures. After receiving
540 negative feedback, there were no diVerences on aggression levels between high conscien-
541 tious groups (M D 4.33) and low conscientious groups (M D 3.68), t(59) D ¡.87, ns. There
542 were also no diVerences on variances between the high and low conscientious groups
543 (SD D 1.78, 1.63, respectively), F(1,59) D 1.07, ns.
544 Using t-tests for independent correlations, we found that the link between self-reported
545 anger (controlling for baseline) and aggression was strongest for individuals low on consci-
546 entiousness when they received negative feedback, r(28) D .58, p < .01 (see Table 5). Fur-
547 thermore, this link held for individuals low on conscientiousness but not for those high in
548 conscientiousness (r D .58 vs. .01, respectively). In other words, the level of self-reported
549 anger was not associated with aversive drink choice for persons high on conscientiousness,
550 whereas the association was strong and signiWcant for individuals low on conscientious-
551 ness. As expected, when low-conscientious individuals reported being angry, there was a
552 corresponding asymmetry in the mid-frontal region as compared with high-conscientious
553 individuals (r D .46 vs. ¡.01, respectively). In addition, mid-frontal and lateral-frontal
554 asymmetry were positively related to beverage choice for low conscientious individuals
Table 4
The relation (B-weights) of anger to aggression as a function of conscientiousness and agreeableness
¡1 SD 0 SD +1 SD t-value
Level of conscientiousness
Negative feedback condition
Anger 1.34¤¤ 0.69¤ 0.01 ¡2.12¤
Mid-frontal 0.80¤¤ 0.45¤ 0.11 ¡1.56
Lateral-frontal 0.55 0.42 0.28 ¡0.47
Positive feedback condition
Anger 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.96
Mid-frontal ¡0.03 0.13 0.29 1.24
Lateral-frontal 0.03 0.26 0.49¤ 2.01
Level of agreeableness
Negative feedback condition
Anger 1.12¤¤ 0.78¤¤ 0.43 ¡1.20
Mid-frontal 0.78¤ 0.50¤ 0.21 ¡1.28
Lateral-frontal 0.39 0.45 0.52 0.28
Positive feedback condition
Anger ¡0.15 0.12 0.39 0.56
Mid-frontal ¡0.09 0.01 0.10 0.03
Lateral-frontal 0.12 0.22 0.33 0.67
Note: ¤p < .05; ¤¤p < .01.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 5
Comparison of correlations between low- and high-conscientious groups
Low conscientious High conscientious
Anger Beverage choice Anger Beverage choice
Negative feedback
N 28 33
Anger — 0.58a¤¤ — 0.01b
Mid-frontal asymmetry 0.46a¤ 0.57a¤¤ ¡0.01b 0.04b
Lateral-frontal asymmetry 0.27a 0.369 ¡0.24b 0.06
Parietal asymmetry ¡0.05 0.17 0.07 ¡0.08
Positive feedback
N 32 33
Anger — 0.08 — ¡0.02
Mid-frontal asymmetry 0.08 ¡0.19 ¡0.10 ¡0.05
Lateral-frontal asymmetry 0.20 ¡0.04 0.13 0.19
Parietal asymmetry ¡0.01 ¡0.07 ¡0.18 ¡0.10
Correlations with diVerent subscripts were signiWcantly diVerent from each other between the two conscientious
groups, p < .05, one-tailed.
¤
p < .05.
¤¤
p < .01.
9
p < .05, one-tailed.
555 (r D .57, .36); this association did not hold for high conscientious individuals (r D .04). As
556 expected, no signiWcant diVerences were found within the positive feedback condition.
557 4. Discussion
558 The current study examined the role of conscientiousness and agreeableness in inXuenc-
559 ing self-control during interpersonally frustrating situations. More speciWcally, we exam-
560 ined whether conscientiousness and agreeableness inXuenced anger reactions and
561 aggressive responding. This study found that conscientiousness was related to both self-
562 reported anger and frontal cortical asymmetry associated with anger responses (Harmon-
563 Jones & Sigelman, 2001). In addition, conscientiousness moderated the association
564 between anger and aggression. Individuals who were low on conscientiousness were more
565 likely to chose an aversive drink when they reported being angry. There was no evidence of
566 a relation between anger and aggression when individuals were high on conscientiousness,
567 suggesting that individuals higher on conscientiousness may be better able to control their
568 behavior when they were frustrated.
569 Our Wndings suggest that conscientiousness is not only important for task performance
570 (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991), but it may also be critical for individuals to be responsive to
571 social self-regulation rules. Traits associated with self-control may have evolved speciWcally
572 for reciprocal social exchanges and for the formation of cooperative group living (Barkley,
573 2001). Other researchers have posited these ideas as well (see Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Bau-
574 meister & Vohs, 2004; Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Indeed, poor general self-regulation has been
575 linked to poor emotional control (Barkley, 1998; Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994; Bau-
576 meister & Vohs, 2004). In other words, conscientiousness may be important for interpersonal
577 relationships because it serves as an indication of executive control functions such as behav-
578 ioral inhibition (Nigg, 2000), which in turn is important for developing and maintaining inter-
579 personal relationships. Indeed, Jensen-Campbell and Malcolm (2006) have found that
ARTICLE IN PRESS
580 adolescents who are lower in conscientiousness seem to suVer in their peer relationships. This
581 study suggests one of the possible routes for poorer interpersonal relationships may be
582 because low conscientious individuals may be less able to control their anger when con-
583 fronted with a frustrating interpersonal situation. Indeed, emotional and behavioral regula-
584 tion has been linked to social competence and peer conXicts in children as young as preschool
585 age (2–5 years old). Socially competent children are those who have and exercise the ability to
586 adjust their behavior appropriately across situations (Cavell, 1990).
587 Agreeableness, however, was positively associated with anger, but not aggressive behav-
588 ior in the negative feedback condition. One possible explanation for this result is that per-
589 sons higher in agreeableness may display more negative aVect than persons lower in
590 agreeableness because receiving negative feedback may represent a greater mismatch of
591 their interpersonal orientation. The idea is that people react best to situations that best Wt
592 their individual characteristics (e.g., kind, cooperative). Receiving feedback that could be
593 perceived as “rude” and “unkind” would be in direct contradiction to the cooperative ori-
594 entation of an agreeable person. In other words, persons higher in agreeableness may be
595 more sensitive to the damaging eVects of destructive interpersonal tactics and therefore
596 express more anger in interactions that use these destructive tactics (Jensen-Campbell &
597 Graziano, 2001; Suls et al., 1998).
598 However, the inXuence of agreeableness on anger reactions held only for persons who
599 were low on conscientiousness. Thus, individuals who have a prosocial, cooperative orienta-
600 tion but are not able to “shift and focus their attention” may dwell on the negative interac-
601 tion and its inappropriateness causing them to become angrier than their more conscientious
602 peers. That being said, there was a trend (although not signiWcant) for persons lower on
603 agreeableness to choose more aversive drink choices when angered. When persons were high
604 on agreeableness, self-reported anger and prefrontal asymmetry were not associated with
605 aversive drink choice. Thus, it may be possible that although agreeable persons may be more
606 angered by rude comments, they are better able to control that anger to choose more socially
607 acceptable responses. More research is needed to examine these interesting Wndings.
608 4.1. Future directions
609 The present study has a number of obvious strengths. First, the study used multiple
610 methods to assess anger (i.e., prefrontal asymmetry and self-reported anger), which enabled
611 us to examine the validity of our anger assessments. Our results partially replicated Har-
612 mon-Jones and Sigelman (2001). For example, anger was related to mid-frontal but not lat-
613 eral-frontal asymmetry in the negative feedback condition. Individuals in the negative
614 feedback condition also showed greater lateral-frontal activity than did persons in the pos-
615 itive feedback condition. Both self-reported anger and lateral-frontal activity were associ-
616 ated with drink choice; mid-frontal activity, however, was not associated with drink choice
617 in the negative feedback condition.
618 Second, this study employed important controls and comparisons. First, this study
619 examined prefrontal asymmetry while comparing it to parietal asymmetry. The anticipated
620 diVerentiation between prefrontal asymmetry and parietal asymmetry was found. Second,
621 parietal activity was not systematically related to self-reported anger or beverage choice in
622 the negative feedback condition. Third, neither conscientiousness nor agreeableness was
623 associated with parietal activity in the negative feedback condition (see Table 3). Fourth,
624 conscientiousness moderated the prefrontal asymmetry-aggression link in the negative
ARTICLE IN PRESS
625 feedback condition; this moderating eVect was not replicated for parietal activity. Finally,
626 the pattern of results only held for post-experimental (not baseline) measures in the nega-
627 tive feedback condition.
628 There are also several limitations in the current study as well. First, there was not
629 enough power to detect higher-order interactions. For example, there were no signiWcant
630 agreeableness £ anger interactions within the negative feedback condition. However, closer
631 examination of the data suggests that the link between anger and aversive drink choice
632 held only for persons with medium or low levels of agreeableness (see Table 4). A similar
633 pattern was found for the moderating inXuence of conscientiousness on the mid-frontal
634 asymmetry to aversive drink choice relationship.
635 As stated previously, analyses were run separately by condition because of power issues
636 associated with detecting three-way interactions (see Aiken & West, 1991, p. 139).
637 Although having a comparison positive feedback condition was strength of this study,
638 future research would require a much larger sample size to detect signiWcant three-way
639 (and even some two-way) interactions. This study suggests that the moderating inXuences
640 probably exist, but the small sample size limited our ability to Wnd them.
641 Second, we did not Wnd a direct link between agreeableness and conscientiousness to
642 aversive drink choice. Future research needs to assess the inXuences of conscientiousness
643 and agreeableness on aggression using diVerent paradigms (e.g., paradigms used by Rich-
644 ardson et al., 1998; Taylor, 1967). Indeed, other researchers have found a direct link
645 between conscientiousness, agreeableness, and aggression (Gleason, Jensen-Campbell, &
646 Richardson, 2004; Jensen-Campbell, 2006; Jensen-Campbell & Malcolm, 2006; Meier,
647 Robinson, & Wilkowski, 2006; Workman, 2000). Although our operationalization of
648 aggression is valid and has been used in previous research (e.g., Harmon-Jones & Sigelman,
649 2001; Lieberman, Solomon, Greenberg, & McGregor, 1999), multiple converging assess-
650 ments may help researchers gain a better insight into how personality may moderate the
651 anger–aggression link.
652 Finally, there was no direct measure of self-control in this study. Instead, this study
653 focused on how conscientiousness and agreeableness moderate the anger–aggression link.
654 Based on previous empirical data, it was theorized that the reason conscientiousness and
655 agreeableness would moderate this known association is because these dimensions are pre-
656 sumed to have temperamental origins in eVortful control (Ahadi & Rothbart, 1994). Future
657 research, however, should not only focus on expanding the currently proposed moderator
658 model, but should also examine how self-control processes associated with agreeableness and
659 conscientiousness might mediate the link between Big Five traits and emotional and behav-
660 ioral regulation. Some work in the area has already begun. For example, Meier et al. (2006)
661 found that agreeableness was associated with the regulation of aggression-related primes
662 (e.g., the activation of prosocial thoughts). In addition, D’Alfonso et al. (2000) found that
663 manipulating the activation of the right prefrontal cortex through repetitive transcranial
664 magnetic stimulation (rTMS) led participants to attentionally avoid angry faces. Finally,
665 Harmon-Jones, Peterson, and Vaughn (2003) found that sympathy is associated with the
666 reduction of relative left frontal asymmetry associated with anger. Finally, this study found
667 that individuals higher on conscientiousness showed less left lateral-frontal activity while
668 showing greater activation in the right lateral-frontal region when involved in a frustrating
669 situation. It may be that high-conscientious persons are naturally better at shifting their
670 attention away from frustrating situations and toward sympathic or prosocial thoughts,
671 which in turn leads to avoidance of aggressive confrontations.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
672 5. Conclusions
673 In summary, when confronted with negative feedback, individuals who were higher on
674 self-reported conscientiousness were more regulated in their expression of anger as
675 assessed by both self-reports and prefrontal cortical asymmetry. Moreover, the link
676 between anger and aversive drink choice held only for persons lower on conscientiousness
677 in the negative feedback condition. These Wndings provide further support for the theoreti-
678 cal supposition that eVortful control processes are linked to at least one of the major
679 dimensions in the Big Five structural model of personality, namely conscientiousness.
680 Moreover, this study provides the Wrst evidence that neural substrates associated with
681 anger control (i.e., the prefrontal cortex) are associated with conscientiousness. Even with
682 its limitations, this study suggests that research on self-control and prefrontal asymmetry
683 would proWt from an approach that includes a more careful examination of Big Five
684 personality traits believed to be associated with developmentally based eVortful control
685 processes.
686 References
687 Abe, J. A. A. (2005). The predictive validity of the Wve-factor model of personality with preschool age children: A
688 nine year follow-up study. Journal of Research in Personality, 39(4), 423–442.
689 Ahadi, S., & Rothbart, M. K. (1994). In C. F. Halverson, D. Kohnstamm, & R. Martin (Eds.), Development of the
690 structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 189–208). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
691 Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA:
692 Sage.
693 Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27–51.
694 Anderson, C. A., & Carnagey, N. L. (2004). Violent evil and the general aggression model. In A. Miller (Ed.), The
695 social psychology of good and evil (pp. 168–192). New York: Guildford Publications.
696 Appelbaum, M.I., & McCall, R.B. (1983). Design and analysis in developmental psychology. In P.H. Mussen
697 (Series Ed.) & W. Kessen (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. History, theory, and methods (pp.
698 415–476). New York: Wiley.
699 Arthur, W., Jr., & Graziano, W. G. (1996). The Wve-factor model, conscientiousness, and driving accident involve-
700 ment. Journal of Personality, 64, 593–618.
701 Barkley, R. A. (1998). Attention-deWcit/hyperactivity disorder. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Treatment of
702 childhood disorders (2nd ed., pp. 55–110). New York: Guilford Press.
703 Barkley, R. A. (2001). The executive functions and self-regulation: An evolutionary neuropsychological perspec-
704 tive. Neuropsychology Review, 11, 1–29.
705 Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analy-
706 sis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
707 Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and why people fail at self-regula-
708 tion. San Diego: Academic Press.
709 Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamen-
710 tal human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
711 Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and application. New
712 York: Guilford Press.
713 Belsky, J., Friedman, S. L., & Hsieh, K.-H. (2001). Testing a core emotion-regulation prediction: does early atten-
714 tional persistence moderate the eVect of infant negative emotionality on later development? Child Develop-
715 ment, 72(1), 123–133.
716 Berkowitz, L. (1968). The study of urban violence: Some implications of laboratory studies of frustration and
717 aggression. American Behavioral Scientist, 11(4), 14–17.
718 Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York: McGraw-Hill.
719 Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the Wve-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin,
720 117, 187–215.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
721 Briggs, S. R. (1992). Assessing the Wve-factor model of personality description. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 253–293.
722 Cavell, T. A. (1990). Social adjustment, social performance, and social skills: a tri-component model of social
723 competencies. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19(2), 111–122.
724 Coan, J. A., & Allen, J. J. B. (2004). Frontal EEG asymmetry as a moderator and mediator of emotion. Biological
725 Psychology, 67, 7–49.
726 D’Alfonso, A. A. L., van Honk, J., Hermans, E., Postma, A., & de Haan, E. H. F. (2000). Laterality eVects in selec-
727 tive attention to threat after repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation at the prefrontal cortex in female
728 subjects. Neuroscience Letters, 280, 195–198.
729 Digman, J. M., & Inouye (1986). Further speciWcation of the Wve robust factors of personality. Journal of Person-
730 ality and Social Psychology, 50, 116–123.
731 Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Maszk, P., Smith, M., & Karbon, M. (1995). The role of emotionality and
732 regulation in children’s social functioning: a longitudinal study. Child Development, 66, 1360–1384.
733 Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Nyman, M., Bernzweig, J., & Pinuelas, A. (1994). The relations of emotionality and
734 regulation to young children’s anger-related reactions. Child Development, 65, 109–128.
735 Elphick, E., Halverson, C. F., Jr., & Marszal-Wisniewska, M. (1998). Extraversion: Toward a unifying description
736 from infancy to adulthood. In C. F. Halverson Jr. & G. A. Kohnstamm (Eds.), Parental descriptions of child
737 personality: Developmental antecedents of the Big Five (pp. 21–48). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
738 Fox, N. A., Rubin, K. H., Calkins, S. D., Marshall, T. R., Coplan, R. J., Porges, S. W., Long, J. M., & Stewart, S.
739 (1995). Frontal activation asymmetry and social competence at four years of age. Child Development, 66,
740 1770–1784.
741 Fuster, J. M. (1989). The prefrontal cortex. New York: Raven Press.
742 Gleason, K. A., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Richardson, D. S. (2004). Agreeableness as a predictor of aggression in
743 adolescence. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 43–61.
744 Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers of the Big Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4,
745 26–42.
746 Goldberg, E. (2001). The executive brain: Frontal lobes and the civilized mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
747 Graziano, W. G., Hair, E. C., & Finch, J. F. (1997). Competitiveness mediates the link between personality and
748 group performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1394–1408.
749 Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conXict and reacting to it:
750 The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 820–835.
751 Hagemann, D. (2004). Individual diVerences in anterior EEG asymmetry: methodological problems and solu-
752 tions. Biological Psychology, 67, 157–182.
753 Harmon-Jones, E. (2004). Contributions from research on anger and cognitive dissonance to understanding the
754 motivational functions of asymmetrical frontal brain activity. Biological Psychology, 67, 51–76.
755 Harmon-Jones, E., & Allen, J. J. B. (1998). Anger and prefrontal brain activity: EEG asymmetry consistent with
756 approach motivation despite negative aVective valence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
757 1310–1316.
758 Harmon-Jones, E., Peterson, H., & Vaughn, K. (2003). The dissonance-inducing eVects of an inconsistency
759 between experienced empathy and knowledge of past failures to help: Support for the action-based model of
760 dissonance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 69–78.
761 Harmon-Jones, E., & Sigelman, J. (2001). State anger and prefrontal brain activity: Evidence that insult-related
762 relative left prefrontal activity is associated with experienced anger and aggression. Journal of Personality and
763 Social Psychology, 80, 797–803.
764 Harmon-Jones, E., Vaughn-Scott, K., Mohr, S., Sigelman, J., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2004). The eVect of manipu-
765 lated sympathy and anger on left and right frontal cortical activity. Emotion, 4, 95–101.
766 Havill, V. L., Besevegis, E., & Mouroussaski, S. (1998). Agreeableness as a diachronic human trait. In G. A. Kohn-
767 stamm, C. F. Halverson Jr., I. Mervielde, & V. L. Havill (Eds.), Parental descriptions of child personality: Devel-
768 opmental antecedents of the Big Five? (pp. 49–64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
769 Jasper, H. H. (1958). The ten–twenty electrode system of the International Federation. Electroencephalography
770 and Clinical Neuropsychology, 10, 371–375.
771 Jensen-Campbell, L.A. (2006). Conscientiousness and agreeableness as predictors of school grades, TAKS scores,
772 and adjustment. Unpublished raw data.
773 Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conXict. Jour-
774 nal of Personality, 69, 323–362.
775 Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2005). The two faces of temptation: diVering motives for self-control.
776 Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51, 287–314.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
777 Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Graziano, W. G., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Personality and relationships as moderators of
778 interpersonal conXict in adolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42(1), 148–164.
779 Jensen-Campbell, L.A., & Malcolm, K.T. (2006). Do personality traits associated with self-control inXuence ado-
780 lescent interpersonal functioning?: A case for conscientiousness.
781 Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Rosselli, M., Workman, K. A., Santisi, M., Rios, J., & Bojan, D. (2002). Agreeableness,
782 conscientiousness, and eVortful control processes. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 476–489.
783 John, O.P., Donahue, E.M., & Kentle, R. (1991). The Big-Five inventory—Versions 4a and 54. Technical Report.
784 Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
785 Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Harlan, E. T. (2000). EVortful control in early childhood: continuity and change,
786 antecedents, and implications for social development. Developmental Psychology, 36, 220–232.
787 Landau, S., & Milich, R. (1988). Social communication patterns of attention deWcit disordered boys. Journal of
788 Abnormal Child Psychology, 16, 69–81.
789 Larsen, R. J., & Prizmic, Z. (2004). AVect regulation. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-
790 regulation: Research, theory, and application (pp. 40–61). New York: Guilford Press.
791 Lieberman, J. D., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). A hot new way to measure aggression:
792 Hot sauce allocation. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 331–348.
793 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: theoretical contexts for
794 the Wve-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Wve-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp.
795 51–87). New York: Guilford Press.
796 Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., & Wilkowski, B. M. (2006). Turning the other cheek: agreeableness and the regula-
797 tion of aggression-related primes. Psychological Science, 17, 136–142.
798 Nigg, J. T. (2000). On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: views from cognitive and per-
799 sonality psychology and a working inhibition taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 220–246.
800 Nigg, J. T., Blaskey, L. G., Huang-Pollock, C. L., & Rappley, M. D. (2002). Neuropsychological executive func-
801 tions in DSM-IV ADHD subtypes. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41,
802 59–66.
803 Pivik, R. T., Broughton, R. J., Coppola, R., Davidson, R. J., Fox, N., & Nuwer, M. R. (1993). Guidelines for the
804 recording and quantitative analysis of electroencephalographic activity in research contexts. Psychophysiol-
805 ogy, 30, 547–558.
806 Rothbart, M.K., & Bates, J.E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Hand-
807 book of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 105–176). New
808 York: Wiley.
809 Rothbart, M. K., Chew, K. H., & Gartstein, M. A. (2001). Assessment of temperament in early development. In L. T.
810 Singer & P. S. Sanford (Eds.), Biobehavioral assessment of the infant (pp. 190–208). New York: Guilford Press.
811 Rothbart, M. K., & Posner, M. I. (1985). Temperament and the development of self-regulation. In L. C. Hartlage
812 & C. F. Telzrow (Eds.), The neuropsychology of individual diVerences: A developmental perspective (pp. 93–123).
813 New York: Plenum Press.
814 Sansone, C., Wiebe, D. J., & Morgan, C. (1999). Self-regulating interest: the moderating role of hardiness and con-
815 scientiousness. Journal of Personality, 67(4), 701–733.
816 Shiner, R. L. (2000). Linking childhood personality with adaptation: evidence for continuity and change across
817 time into late adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 310–325.
818 Suls, J., Martin, R., & David, J. (1998). Person–environment Wts and its limits: agreeableness, neuroticism, and
819 emotional reactivity to interpersonal conXict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 88–98.
820 Taylor, S. P. (1967). Aggressive behavior and physiological arousal as a function of provocation and the tendency
821 to inhibit aggression. Journal of Personality, 35(2), 297–310.
822 Tobin, R.M., & Graziano, W.G. (2006). The mistaken gift: Dispositional and situational moderators of emotional
823 expressions.
824 Tobin, R. M., Graziano, W. G., & Vanman, E. J. (2000). Personality, emotional experience, and eVorts to control
825 emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 656–669.
826 Tomarken, A. J., Davidson, R. J., Wheeler, R. E., & Kinney, L. (1992). Psychometric properties of resting anterior
827 EEG asymmetry: temporal stability and internal consistency. Psychophysiology, 29, 576–592.
828 Vohs, K. D., & Ciarocco, N. J. (2004). Interpersonal functioning requires self-regulation. In R. F. Baumeister & K.
829 D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and application (pp. 392–410). New York: Guil-
830 ford Press.
831 Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and
832 negative aVect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
833 Wheeler, R. E., Davidson, R. J., & Tomarken, A. J. (1993). Frontal brain asymmetry and emotional reactivity: a
834 biological substrate of aVective style. Psychophysiology, 30, 82–89.
835 Workman, K.A. (2000). Emotional regulation and responses to provocation: Does agreeableness make a diVer-
836 ence? Unpublished master’s thesis. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL.
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

Do Big Five Personality Traits Associated With Self-Control Influence The Regulation of Anger and Aggression?

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Do Big Five Personality Traits Associated With Self-Control Influence The Regulation of Anger and Aggression?

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

1 Do Big Five personality traits associated with

2 L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

62 1.1. Self-control and personality

L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 3

4 L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

126 1.2. Neural correlates of self-control

147 1.3. The present study

L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 5

187 2.1. Participants

193 2.2. Materials

194 2.2.1. Measures of personality

6 L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

219 2.2.2. Measures of emotion

228 2.3. EEG recordings

L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 7

246 2.4. Procedure

8 L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

281 friendly–unfriendly, illogical–logical, respectable–unrespectable, irrational–rational. For

317 2.5. EEG analysis

L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 9

10 L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 11

12 L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 13

14 L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 15

16 L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 17

608 4.1. Future directions

18 L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 19

20 L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 21

22 L.A. Jensen-Campbell et al. / Journal of Research in Personality xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

También podría gustarte