《社会心理学》课程教学资源（文献资料）Aggression——When Nasty Breeds Nice - Threats of Violence Amplify Agreeableness at National, Individual, and Situational Levels

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES When Nasty Breeds Nice:Threats of Violence Amplify Agreeableness at National,Individual,and Situational Levels Andrew Edward White,Douglas T.Kenrick,and Steven L NbeB.Cohen 2ee were le ore likel y than Keywords:threat,aggression,affiliation,personality,agreeableness Threats have been linked to functional variation in personality and research.we investigate responses to a very different type of threat posed by other huma 200s help limit tions (Berkowit ht In fa 19).However,thi sen.Becker.Ackerman.Neubers Kenrick.2010).Thus reats of violence may actually incline people to be more agree rach is grounded in two underlving premises:first.that humans This article was published Online First July 2.2012. aggression ard White.Do CRMap s of viole sedby others (Co Tooby. 2000 chik,1980:Van Vug eting.Entreprene and danger.today.functional in 622

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES When Nasty Breeds Nice: Threats of Violence Amplify Agreeableness at National, Individual, and Situational Levels Andrew Edward White, Douglas T. Kenrick, and Yexin Jessica Li Arizona State University Chad R. Mortensen Metropolitan State College of Denver Steven L. Neuberg and Adam B. Cohen Arizona State University Humans have perennially faced threats of violence from other humans and have developed functional strategies for surviving those threats. Five studies examined the relation between threats of violence and agreeableness at the level of nations, individuals, and situations. People living in countries with higher military spending (Study 1) and those who chronically perceive threats from others (Study 2) were more agreeable. However, this threat-linked agreeableness was selective (Studies 3–5). Participants primed with threat were more agreeable and willing to help familiar others but were less agreeable and willing to help unfamiliar others. Additionally, people from large families, for whom affiliation may be a salient response to threat, were more likely than people from small families to shift in agreeableness. Returning to the national level, military spending was associated with increased trust in ingroup members but decreased trust in outgroups. Together, these findings demonstrate that agreeableness is selectively modulated by threats of violence. Keywords: threat, aggression, affiliation, personality, agreeableness Threats have been linked to functional variation in personality and social behavior at both the national and local level. Citizens of nations with higher pathogen loads, for instance, tend to perceive themselves as more dispositionally introverted and closed to new experiences (Schaller & Murray, 2008)—inclinations that help limit contact with people or places that potentially carry pathogens. Experimental re￾search yields parallel findings: Compared with people exposed to neutral pictures, those exposed to pictures of sick others subsequently report being more introverted and less open to new experiences (Mortensen, Becker, Ackerman, Neuberg, & Kenrick, 2010). Thus, people facing disease threats tend to have personality characteristics that facilitate social avoidance of potentially sick others. In the present research, we investigate responses to a very different type of threat posed by other humans—the threat of violence. Common sense might suggest that chronic exposure to violence and hostility leads people to become more hostile themselves and, ultimately, less agreeable and trusting of others. Indeed, some research suggests that aggression and other responses related to disagreeableness follow from threatening situations (Berkowitz, 1990; Duntley, 2005; Kenrick & Sheets, 1994). However, this might not always be the case. In fact, under certain circumstances, threats of violence may actually incline people to be more agree￾able, helpful, and trusting. In the current investigation, we explore how threats of violence are linked to personality characteristics and corresponding social behav￾iors in seemingly counterintuitive but ultimately functional ways. Our approach is grounded in two underlying premises: first, that humans have encountered aggression and hostility from other humans for many thousands of years and, as a consequence, evolved specific strategies for surviving threats of violence posed by others (Cosmides & Tooby, 1992; Öhman & Mineka, 2001; Plutchik, 1980; Van Vugt, De Cremer, & Janssen, 2007) and, second, that environmental cues of violence and danger, today, trigger functional psychological shifts in attitudes, cognitions, behaviors, and personality that can facilitate these survival strategies (Griskevicius, Goldstein, Mortensen, Cial￾dini, & Kenrick, 2006; Kenrick, Li, & Butner, 2003; Maner et al., 2005; Mortensen et al., 2010; Neuberg, Kenrick, & Schaller, 2011). In five studies, we explore responses to threats of violence at three levels—at the level of nations, of individuals, and of temporary situations (both in the lab and in the field). This article was published Online First July 2, 2012. Andrew Edward White, Douglas T. Kenrick, and Yexin Jessica Li, Depart￾ment of Psychology, Arizona State University; Chad R. Mortensen, Depart￾ment of Psychology, Metropolitan State College of Denver; Steven L. Neuberg and Adam B. Cohen, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University. Yexin Jessica Li is now at the Department of Marketing, Entrepreneur￾ship, and Law, Kansas University School of Business. This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH064734 to Douglas T. Kenrick and Steven L. Neuberg and by National Science Foundation Grant 0642873 to Douglas T. Kenrick, Ste￾ven L. Neuberg, and Vladas Griskevicius. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Douglas T. Kenrick, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 871104, Tempe, AZ 85287. E-mail: douglas.kenrick@asu.edu Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2012, Vol. 103, No. 4, 622– 634 © 2012 American Psychological Association 0022-3514/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0029140 622 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly

THREATS OF VIOLENCE AND AGREEABLENESS 623 Threats of Violence and Aggression thought of their own death (Wisman Koolc.2003).Morcover To u ned.a functi groupcohesio generally.According to me research suggests that other people as ed with cgat山 Functional Shifts in Personality Characteristics oom.are liked less than red unde n h Along lines.it has been e.then on nent of Miller.Doob.Mowrer.Sears 1939 and ber z(1990 ing o ed that personality chara ristics are heritable latively cons 1993 nt (Berkowitz.1987 n a ality char after threats to the self or valued others (Kenrick Shee Kecent res 1993 infectious di and r hreatened them(Wilson.1989).Feeling threatened is also one of common 1990,Hc in extn essen.Coie.&Schu .2001).and children who An Vp 1982.T these findings suo st that p than en et a Threats of Violence and Affiliation the link be social aversio sometimes respond to threats of vio Functional Shifts in Agreeableness hed ved ahe n and affiliation seem to he dis roup me oming threats of violence.To the exten hese strategies.cor he (WattChapman.199).Mor nd un set o aggregatio omality ivasav 1999 Ger s thought to rep distract predators,and females and yo ng animals can gain pro haracteristics,agreeableness is most closely as dwi油bot ige of that humans are also compelled to on.Habashi.Sheese&Tobi s are inclined to come Past research has demonstrated that individuals low in agree and anx high Geary Flinn,2002 Scha chter,1959 Tay r et al 2000).a 2004:Martin,Wa pople have an increased desire to affiliate when they onsider th Olson&Webe

Threats of Violence and Aggression To understand how humans respond to threats of violence, it is useful to consider how humans respond to dangerous or negative circumstances more generally. According to theories of classical conditioning, any stimulus associated with an aversive state will automatically elicit negative responses (Berger, 1962). Indeed, some research suggests that other people associated with negative circumstances, such as a stranger encountered in an uncomfortably hot room, are liked less than those encountered under neutral circumstances (Griffitt, 1970). Along similar lines, it has been proposed that aggression is triggered by frustration (Dollard, Miller, Doob, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939), and Berkowitz (1990) reviewed evidence suggesting that when a negative feeling or thought occurs, it can activate a host of related, negative memories, feelings, and behaviors. For example, participants asked to think about negative experiences were, compared with those who thought about neutral experiences, less willing to help a research assistant (Berkowitz, 1987). In addition to generally negative circumstances, other research has demonstrated that people respond in socially aversive ways to threats of violence from others (Duntley, 2005; MacLaren, Best, & Bigney, 2010). For example, homicidal fantasies most frequently occur after threats to the self or valued others (Kenrick & Sheets, 1993), and women are most often motivated to murder their husbands following a history in which the husband has abused and threatened them (Wilson, 1989). Feeling threatened is also one of the most common causes of aggression in young children (Dodge, Price, Bachorowski, & Newman, 1990; Hubbard, Dodge, Cil￾lessen, Coie, & Schwartz, 2001), and children who view the world as hostile are more likely to initiate aggression (Dodge & Frame, 1982). Together, these findings suggest that people who feel threatened will be inclined to act in socially aversive ways. Threats of Violence and Affiliation Despite the link between threats of violence and social aversion reviewed above, several other lines of research suggest a more complicated story: People sometimes respond to threats of vio￾lence with social affiliation. Across a diverse range of animal species, aggregation, or diminished physical distance between group members, has been found to be a common strategy for surviving threats of violence (Crook, 1960; Darling, 1937; Kraus, 1994; Scott, 1945; Stankowich, 2003). While aggregation can create large groups that are easy targets for predators, increasing group size also reduces the likelihood of any one individual being attacked (Watt & Chapman, 1998). Moreover, aggregation has several other advantages—it gives individuals the opportunity to work together to fight off predators, it can serve to confuse and distract predators, and females and young animals can gain pro￾tection from larger males (Werner & Dyer, 1992). Given the apparent benefits of an aggregation strategy across a wide range of animal species, it is possible that humans are also compelled to aggregate in the presence of threats. Indeed, some evidence suggests that humans are inclined to come together under threat. For example, the stress and anxiety produced by dangerous situations tends to increase the desire to be near others (Geary & Flinn, 2002; Schachter, 1959; Taylor et al., 2000), and people have an increased desire to affiliate when they consider the thought of their own death (Wisman & Koole, 2003). Moreover, people are more inclined to conform to others’ opinions when threat￾ened, a functional shift in behavior that could enhance group cohesion and help prevent standing out from the crowd (Griskevicius et al., 2006). Together, these findings suggest that people who feel threat￾ened sometimes act in socially affiliative ways. Functional Shifts in Personality Characteristics If shifts toward social aversion or affiliation can be successful strategies for surviving threats of violence, then one component of enacting these strategies might involve functional shifts in person￾ality characteristics and social behavior. Although past research has demonstrated that personality characteristics are heritable, arise early in development, are relatively consistent from situation to situation, and are relatively consistent across the life span (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003; Carey, 2003; Goldberg, 1993; Jang, Livesley, & Vernon, 1996; John, Caspi, Robins, & Moffitt, 1994; Loehlin, McCrae, Costa, & John, 1998), it is also true that personality characteristics can shift as a function of subtle situa￾tional changes (Funder, 2006; Funder & Colvin, 1991; Furr & Funder, 2004; Sherman, Nave, & Funder, 2010). Recent research has suggested that personality characteristics vary in functional ways with environmental circumstances. In a compre￾hensive analysis of the relation between infectious disease and per￾sonality around the world, Schaller and Murray (2008) found that as disease prevalence in a geographic region increased, there was a correspondent decrease in extroversion and openness. These changes are thought to be functional, as they can help limit contact with people or places that potentially carry disease. An experimental study found a similar pattern of results at the individual level. People who were exposed to pictures of sick others later reported lower levels of extroversion and openness to new experience than people exposed to neutral pictures (Mortensen et al., 2010). Given the relationship be￾tween disease threat and personality characteristics, there is reason to suspect that analogous shifts in personality characteristics might be found in response to threats of violence. Functional Shifts in Agreeableness As reviewed above, aggression and affiliation seem to be dis￾tinct strategies for overcoming threats of violence. To the extent that functional shifts in personality characteristics can promote these strategies, corresponding shifts in specific personality char￾acteristics may occur following these threats. The “Big Five” refers to a comprehensive and universal set of characteristics thought to represent the basic dimensions of per￾sonality (Costa & McCrae, 1992; John & Srivastava, 1999; Gold￾berg, 1993; McCrae & John, 1992). Of the Big Five personality characteristics, agreeableness is most closely associated with both aggression and affiliation—as it is connected to interpersonal cooperation and conflict (Gleason, Jensen-Campbell, & Richard￾son, 2004; Graziano, Habashi, Sheese, & Tobin, 2007; Jensen￾Campbell & Graziano, 2001; John & Srivastava, 1999). Past research has demonstrated that individuals low in agree￾ableness are more aggressive, have higher levels of trait anger, higher levels of revenge seeking, and greater interpersonal hostility (Gleason et al., 2004; Martin, Watson, & Wan, 2000; Nettle & Liddle, 2008; Olson & Weber, 2004). Moreover, individual dif￾THREATS OF VIOLENCE AND AGREEABLENESS 623 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly

624 WHITE FT AI ferences in agreeableness have been shown to influence re Graziano. s respond to conflic by us tha rely o Overview of Studies er.Ro but not tho In this article we investigate (a)wbether agreeableness shifts ir igh in agrecable ecome more ag ve when primed with s is related to a n cialit to threat.(c)if shifts in y.high le hreat and a als high in agre perationto and of pe hin ndri haller M unta,Pan &1 2010 et al,2007 omprebensive understanding of the ce een threats o ,1999 A d we ex the ng one ions.abiding bye the desire s:and in respons dition Sc he agreeablene e nations.Study 2 explore tion,we sugge t that bothare that an individua oup size in threat resp Study 4 was a fielo Rat we expect tha if threat and a behavioral esponding so d to threat wit reats of vio cial behaviors.would help a pe ff Study 1:Nation-Level Threats of Violence and Agreeableness person to respond to sarch has demonstrated that threats of von cn dt hre factors that of violence trigg n strategies,thcm onship betw n threat and agreeab s:(a)the targets being should rep s and 1b) ciodevelopmental fa cople in co ed to the the face of threat.it w or beneficial.for a of chose to examin hould occur primarily toward m mbers of the ingroup.who may hreat of violence Indeed nast ch has found that militar and that publi f other rget of agreeabler the size of one's socia ions of inte ational threa inc 1950d2000ou small group sizes that advantage is reduced.As such.the size of Finally,military spending is an advantageous variable to examine

ferences in agreeableness have been shown to influence responses to threatening or distressing situations. Graziano, Jensen￾Campbell, and Hair (1996) found evidence that individuals low in agreeableness respond to conflict by using tactics that rely on asserting power over others, and Meier, Robinson, and Wilkowski (2006) reported that individuals low in agreeableness, but not those high in agreeableness, become more aggressive when primed with aggression words. Overall, these findings indicate that low agree￾ableness is related to a number of attitudes and behaviors that may facilitate aggression. Conversely, high levels of agreeableness have been linked to many attitudes and behaviors that can promote affiliation. Individ￾uals high in agreeableness prefer cooperation to competition, are willing to risk more to help others, are more prosocial, and have more harmonious relationships with others (Caprara, Alessandri, Di Giunta, Panerai, & Eisenberg, 2010; Graziano et al., 2007; Graziano, Hair, & Finch, 1997; Soldz & Vaillant, 1999). Agree￾ableness is also positively correlated with values related to social goals, such as fulfilling one’s social obligations, abiding by estab￾lished norms, avoiding disruption of relationships with others, concern for the welfare of others, and the desire to care for others (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002). The research reviewed thus far has linked threat to agreeable￾ness in two seemingly contradictory ways. In the current investi￾gation, we suggest that both are possible, depending on a combi￾nation of situational circumstances and individual differences. Moreover, we propose that agreeableness is not just an individual difference that moderates threat responding. Rather, we expect that agreeableness may actually shift in the face of threat. Such a response would serve a functional purpose: Shifts toward lower agreeableness, accompanied by shifts in corresponding so￾cial behavior, would incline a person respond to threat with ag￾gression or avoidance. Conversely, shifts toward greater agree￾ableness, and accompanying social behaviors, would help a person affiliate and aggregate with others. Given that shifts toward lesser or greater agreeableness prepare a person to respond to threat in very different ways, it seems improbable that threat will be linked to just one response or the other. Instead, it makes more sense for shifts in agreeableness to be functionally tuned to unique combinations of situational circum￾stances and individual differences. Here, we propose two factors that may critically moderate the relationship between threat and agreeableness: (a) the targets being considered as affiliation partners and (b) sociodevelopmental fac￾tors linked to the size of one’s social group. In the face of threat, it would not be useful, or beneficial, for a person to become more or less agreeable with everyone. As we explore in Studies 3, 4, and 5, shifts toward greater agreeableness should occur primarily toward members of the ingroup, who may offer physical and social support, but not necessarily toward mem￾bers of other groups, who may actually pose a treat. In addition to the target of agreeableness, the size of one’s social group might also influence threat responding. According to animal research, as group size increases, the survival advantages accrued through affiliation and aggregation also increase (Watt & Chap￾man, 1998). Thus, at large groups sizes, affiliation and aggregation are likely to be successful strategies for overcoming threat, but at small group sizes that advantage is reduced. As such, the size of one’s social group may influence whether a person responds to threat with affiliation. We explore this issue in Study 3. Overview of Studies In this article, we investigate (a) whether agreeableness shifts in response to threats of violence, (b) how psychological states and social behaviors associated with agreeableness—trust and proso￾ciality—might also shift in response to threat, (c) if shifts in agreeableness are target-specific, and (d) if individual differences in the size of one’s social group moderate the relationship between threat and agreeableness. Recent findings have linked disease threat to variations in the expression of personality characteristics both at the national level (Schaller & Murray, 2008) and in response to temporary, situa￾tional variation (Mortensen et al., 2010). To provide a similarly comprehensive understanding of the connection between threats of violence and agreeableness, we examined their relation at three levels of analysis—in mean national differences; in individual differences; and in response to temporary, situational conditions (both in the lab and in the field). Study 1 examined the correlation between threats of violence experienced at the national level and the agreeableness of individuals in those nations. Study 2 explored the correlation between individual differences in the perception of threats of violence and agreeableness. Study 3 experimentally manipulated threats of violence, examined changes in agreeable￾ness toward familiar and unfamiliar social groups, and assessed the role of social group size in threat responding. Study 4 was a field study using a real-world manipulation of threat and a behavioral measure of agreeableness— help directed toward ingroup members or outgroups. Returning to the national level in Study 5, we examined the correlation between threats of violence and another indicator of agreeableness—trust in various social groups. Study 1: Nation-Level Threats of Violence and Agreeableness Study 1 sought to test whether a relationship between threats of violence and agreeableness existed at the national level. Because past research has demonstrated that threats of violence can lead to both aggression and affiliation, there are two possible outcomes. If threats of violence trigger aggression strategies, then people in countries experiencing greater threat should report being less agreeable. However, if threats of violence trigger affiliation strat￾egies, then people in countries experiencing greater threat should report being more agreeable. To assess national threats of violence, we chose to examine military spending, a variable that has been linked to the type of intergroup hostility and conflict that fosters a national sense of threat of violence. Indeed, past research has found that military build-ups precede actual wars (Wallace, 1979) and that public support for higher military spending tends to increase as percep￾tions of international threat increase (Kriesberg & Klein, 1980). Moreover, a comprehensive analysis of all interstate conflicts between 1950 and 2000 found that military spending was signif￾icantly correlated with probability of actual conflict (Nordhaus, Oneal, & Russett, 2009) and that this relation survives controlling for a number of political, geographic, and economic variables. Finally, military spending is an advantageous variable to examine 624 WHITE ET AL. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly

THREATS OF VIOLENCE AND AGREEABLENESS 625 spending was related to but not. Although we suggest that the relation between militarys endin Method 05 grossdomesticproteCGDP.cachconinyaocatedohemil ory.Howeve GDP and serves as an indicator of how the military is prioritized ositively related to threat.rather than safery and security firs n relat on to ot different natic 1979).Sc o eview of military spending and perceptions of security found tha East (three nations). (Ward Mahian.1984). d as military spending increase Results Study 2:Individual-Level Threats of Violence and Results revealed a significant betwe mil Agreeableness 54 1 Study 1 ableness also ir haetheebonbewenmi ha we fou that ther s muc evel ind nd c r54 ation bet oundtrong relation地物/e42 35.p To add s plausib ations (Diener,2000).Thus,to examine whether the relatior test whether the observed d whe mber of po respond to threats of violence with aggr es as les and ats Ho ople respond to th personality cl n38and.46.ps<.01 mselves as Discussion Method Study 1 demons trated a relation betw een threats of viole agreeableness at the national level.As military spending increase Procedur be completin e and ableness.However.the finding is in line with the nption that Big Five Inventory (John&Srivastava,1999)and later the Belief World (BDW mc198 of violence whowill attack ,“There are many dang

because it should be somewhat independent of other types of threats (e.g., disease threats or natural disasters). Method To assess military spending we used figures from the CIA World Factbook (2007), which listed the percentage of national gross domestic product (GDP) each country allocated to the mil￾itary. This measure helps to control for national differences in GDP and serves as an indicator of how the military is prioritized in relation to other components of the national budget. To evaluate agreeableness at the national level, we used data reported from Schmitt et al. (2007), in which the Big Five inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999) was administered to 17,837 individuals in 56 different nations. Combining the data on military spending with the data on agreeableness left a total sample of 54 nations representing seven major geopolitical regions: Europe (24 nations), Asia (nine na￾tions), Africa (seven nations), South America (five nations), North America (three nations), Oceania (three nations), and the Middle East (three nations). Results Results revealed a significant, positive correlation between mil￾itary spending and agreeableness, r(54)
.43, p .001. As percent of GDP spent on the military increased, individuals’ agree￾ableness also increased. Exploring the relation between military spending and other Big Five dimensions, we found that there was also a significant, positive correlation between military spending and conscientiousness, r(54)
.35, p
.009, but that there was not a significant correlation between military spending and extro￾version, openness, or neuroticism (rs .10). To address plausible alternative explanations for the relation between military spending and agreeableness, we conducted a series of multiple regression analyses to test whether the observed relation held when statistically controlling for a number of poten￾tially confounding variables. The link between military spending and agreeableness remained significant after individually control￾ling for national GDP, GDP per person, population density, pov￾erty rate, economic disparity, disease prevalence, and other Big Five personality characteristics (s between .38 and .46, ps .01). The observed relation also remained significant when controlling for the same variables in a single regression (
.38, p
.04). Discussion Study 1 demonstrated a relation between threats of violence and agreeableness at the national level. As military spending increased, individuals’ reported being more agreeable. This finding may seem counterintuitive at first, because it is possible that nations that spend a lot on the military would be characterized as hostile and aggressive— characteristics typically associated with low agree￾ableness. However, the finding is in line with the assumption that increased agreeableness can promote affiliation and aggregation. Furthermore, the relation between military spending and agree￾ableness appears to be quite robust, as it survives controlling for a number of potential confounds. Study 1 also found that military spending was related to conscientiousness but not extroversion, openness to experience, or neuroticism. Although we suggest that the relation between military spending and increased agreeableness is indicative of a more fundamental link between threats of violence and increased agreeableness, it is possible that military spending is not actually related to threats of violence. Rather, military spending could be related to feelings of safety and security, as an increased military presence may reduce the perceived likelihood of attack from another country. However, there are several reasons to believe that military spending is positively related to threat, rather than safety and security. First, the empirical studies reviewed above indicate that military spend￾ing is associated with increases in actual interstate conflict and the perceived probability of conflict (Kriesberg & Klein, 1980; Nor￾dhaus et al., 2009; Wallace, 1979). Second, in our data set, the countries with the greatest percentage of GDP dedicated to mili￾tary spending are Jordan, Israel, and Turkey, countries that exist in a relatively unstable part of the globe and countries for which military conflict is of chronic concern. Finally, a longitudinal review of military spending and perceptions of security found that feelings of security decreased as military spending increased (Ward & Mahjan, 1984). Study 2: Individual-Level Threats of Violence and Agreeableness Study 1 suggested a positive relation between threats of violence and agreeableness at the national level. However, it is plausible that this relation is much different at the individual level within a country than at the national level. For example, studies of subjec￾tive well-being have found a strong relation between the wealth of nations and the well-being of citizens in those nations but a much weaker relation between individual wealth and well-being within nations (Diener, 2000). Thus, to examine whether the relation between threats of violence and agreeableness was similar at the national level and the individual level, Study 2 assessed the rela￾tion between individual differences in the perception of threat and agreeableness. Again, there are two possible outcomes. If people respond to threats of violence with aggression, individuals who perceive more threats of violence should see themselves as less agreeable than those who perceive fewer threats. However, if people respond to threats of violence by affiliating, individuals who perceive more threats of violence should see themselves as more agreeable than those who perceive fewer threats. Method Participants. Fifty-four participants (26 male, 28 female) were recruited from introductory psychology classes as partial fulfillment of their class requirement. Participants entered the lab in groups of three or fewer and were seated at individual computers. Procedure. Participants were told they would be completing a study regarding attitudes and decision making. As part of a larger study, participants completed several questionnaires including the Big Five Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999) and later the Belief in a Dangerous World (BDW) scale (Altemeyer, 1988). The BDW scale consists of six items related to personal threats of violence (e.g., “There are many dangerous people in our society who will attack someone out of pure meanness, for no reason at THREATS OF VIOLENCE AND AGREEABLENESS 625 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

626 WHITE ET AL d in th d whether the relation be ness. who pos eats of viol Results ocial affilia arch has found hat hreats of i n a functional perspective.increases t n between the BDW-PT scale and extr the BDWp was not violence would lead people to become more agreeable toward m (rs 20).The relationship betwe les ess als scale,as a wl nd agreeableness.n55)= ossible that the ndividual differer Study 2 den individua s ha es in the percepti 10 At firs ize incre and nan,1998 gation are likely to be m leve g from Study arge was relatively uniane as ons of threat wer lability of a social g durine threa and extroversion but not conscientious may be important.rescarch from wide range of animal spcic and 2fo ounda positive relation betv (Gumnar.2007:Nelson st2009 As n onal threa ).the sie ofprson'predom ed.We propose that this increase in arly impo ver.we have not yet de onstrated that threats of violence are and nce.shift in agreeab s occurs in the opposite direction-that agreeable (iao Ii ling 1986-Perner Ruffman :Van Lange.Ouicn.De violence in the world amily size to determi whether one, both.of these factors n ag (a) whether threats ess.(b)t To more directly s mine the causal relation hetween threats of violence and agreeableness.Study 3 experimentally manipulated agreeableness link

all”) and six items related to abstract societal threats (e.g., “If our society keeps degenerating the way it has been lately, it’s liable to collapse like a rotten log and everything will be in chaos”). Because we were primarily interested in threats of violence, we created a subscale of the six items of the BDW scale that deal with personal, threats of violence (
.70) and analyzed the relation between this subscale, which we refer to as the Belief in a Dan￾gerous World Personal Threat scale (BDW-PT), and agreeable￾ness. Results There was a significant, positive correlation between the BDW-PT scale and agreeableness, r(55)
.36, p
.007. As chronic perceptions of threats of violence increased, people also reported being more agreeable. Additionally, there was a signifi￾cant, positive correlation between the BDW-PT scale and extro￾version, r(55)
.27, p
.041. There was not a significant correlation between the BDW-PT scale and openness, conscien￾tiousness, or neuroticism (rs .20). The relationship between BDW-PT and agreeableness also survived controlling for the other Big Five personality characteristics (
.24, p
.036). Finally, there was a marginally significant correlation between the BDW scale, as a whole, and agreeableness, r(55)
.25, p
.064. Discussion Study 2 demonstrates a positive correlation between individual differences in the perception of threat and agreeableness. At first blush, it might seem as though people who chronically perceive threats of violence are disagreeable, hostile, and untrusting of others. However, the individual level finding from Study 2 fits with the results of Study 1 and the notion that people respond to threats of violence in socially affiliative ways. Additionally, Study 2 found that the relation between perceptions of threat and agree￾ableness was relatively unique, as perceptions of threat were related to agreeableness and extroversion but not conscientious￾ness, openness to experience, or neuroticism. Together, Studies 1 and 2 found a positive relation between threats of violence and agreeableness. As national threats of vio￾lence or chronic individual perceptions of threat increased, agree￾ableness also increased. We propose that this increase in agree￾ableness is a functional strategy for overcoming and surviving threats of violence, because agreeableness can facilitate affiliation. However, we have not yet demonstrated that threats of violence are creating these shifts in agreeableness. There may be an unknown variable causing both increases in threats of violence and increases in agreeableness. Although unlikely, another alternative explana￾tion may be that the relation between threats of violence and agreeableness occurs in the opposite direction—that agreeable people encourage their governments to spend a greater percentage of their GDP on the military and chronically see more threats of violence in the world. Study 3: Situation-Level Threats of Violence and Agreeableness To more directly examine the causal relation between threats of violence and agreeableness, Study 3 experimentally manipulated threats of violence and later measured agreeableness. Additionally, we sought to deepen our understanding of this relation by exam￾ining two potential moderators. First, we examined whether the relation between threats of violence and agreeableness was target-specific, focusing particu￾larly on whether agreeableness is directed toward ingroup versus outgroup members. One possibility is that threat-induced increases in agreeableness reduce threats by leading individuals to act in a nonthreatening and pacifying manner toward those who pose threats of violence. If so, threats of violence should lead to general and noncontingent increases in social affiliation and agreeableness. However, because past research has found that threats of violence can lead to both affiliation and aggression, we suspected that changes in agreeableness would be not be universal across targets. From a functional perspective, increases in agreeableness might only occur to the extent that they enhance one’s ability to affiliate with close others. Therefore, we hypothesized that threats of violence would lead people to become more agreeable toward people to whom they are close but not toward people outside of this select group. In fact, it is possible that people may become less agreeable toward people outside of their protective coalition, be￾cause there would be little benefit in trying to affiliate with strangers given that outgroup others might actually be the source of threat. In addition to being target-specific, it is also possible that there are individual differences in the extent to which people adopt affiliative strategies under threat. Indeed, one such difference might be the size of one’s social group. Research across a range of animal species has suggested that, as group size increases, the survival advantages ac￾crued through affiliation and aggregation also increase (Watt & Chap￾man, 1998). Thus, affiliation and aggregation are likely to be more successful threat-response strategies for members of large groups than members of small groups. As a consequence, one might expect individuals who belong to larger groups to be especially likely to shift in agreeableness under threat. Although the current availability of a social group during threat may be important, research from a wide range of animal species has found that threat responding is heavily influenced by early developmental experiences (Gunnar, 2007; Nelson et al., 2009; Wiedenmayer, 2009). Therefore, the size of a person’s predomi￾nant childhood social group— his or her family—may be particu￾larly important in determining whether a person attempts to affil￾iate under threat. Specifically, people who grew up in large (as opposed to small) families may be more likely to adopt affiliation strategies and, as a consequence, shift in agreeableness, under threat. Consistent with this line of reasoning, larger family size is associated with a range of psychological variables that likely play a role in affiliation and aggregation, such as increased prosociality, increased theory of mind abilities, and greater perceived likelihood of cooperation (Jiao, Ji, & Jing, 1986; Perner, Ruffman, & Leekam, 1994; Van Lange, Otten, De Bruin, & Joireman, 1997). In Study 3 we measured both current social group size and childhood family size to determine whether one, or both, of these factors moderate the effect of threat on agreeableness. Thus, Study 3 had three major goals: (a) to experimentally test whether threats of violence influence agreeableness, (b) to examine whether this relation is target-specific, and (c) to examine whether social group size moderates the threat– agreeableness link. 626 WHITE ET AL. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.