The Anatomy of ANGER - Cg Model and Reactive Agression

8/13/2019 The Anatomy of ANGER - Cg Model and Reactive Agression

1/31

The Anatomy of Anger: An Integrative Cognitive

Model of Trait Anger and Reactive Aggression

Benjamin M. Wilkowski1 and Michael D. Robinson2

1University of Wyoming

2North Dakota State University

ABSTRACT This paper presents an integrative cognitive model, ac-cording to which individual differences in 3 cognitive processes jointly

contribute to a persons level of trait anger and reactive aggression. An

automatic tendency to attribute hostile traits to others is the first of thesecognitive processes, and this process is proposed to be responsible for the

more frequent elicitation of anger, particularly when hostile intent is am-biguous. Rumination on hostile thoughts is the second cognitive process

proposed, which is likely to be responsible for prolonging and intensifying

angry emotional states. The authors finally propose that low trait anger

individuals use effortful control resources to self-regulate the influence of

their hostile thoughts, whereas those high in trait anger do not. A par-

ticular emphasis of this review is implicit cognitive sources of evidence for

the proposed mechanisms. The authors conclude with a discussion of

important future directions, including how the proposed model can be

further verified, broadened to take into account motivational factors, and

applied to help understand anger-related social problems.

In June of 2007, a professor and chair of the molecular biology de-

partment verbally assaulted and threatened to kill a University of

New Hampshire administrator. Apparently, the professor was angry

about a recent parking ticket and blamed the administration for this

occurrence (Gawrylewski, 2007). Although the professor was even-tually found not guilty on charges of disorderly conduct and stalk-

ing, he was nonetheless stripped of his position as department chair

The authors acknowledge support from the NSFs Experimental Program to Stimulate

Competitive Research (NSF/EPSCoR).

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ben Wilkowski,

University of Wyoming, Department of Psychology, Department 3415, 1000 East

University Avenue, Laramie, WY 82071. E-mail:[email protected].

Journal of Personality 78:1, February 2010r 2010 C i ht th A th
http://i/BWUS/JOPY/607/[email protected]://i/BWUS/JOPY/607/[email protected]


2/31

and professor and ultimately banned from the campus (Mytelka,

2007).

This simple anecdote helps to illustrate how even in the hallowed

halls of academia, anger can often be a destructive force. Philoso-phers and poets have long suggested that chronically high levels of

anger are ultimately counterproductive, at least in relation to ones

prospects for social standing in a civilized society (Freud, 1964;

Tavris, 1984). For example, Horace (20 B.C./2001) likened anger to

a brief lunacy and Benjamin Franklin (1734) stated, Whatevers

begun in anger ends in shame.

Empirical research supports the point that chronically high levels of

anger can be quite problematic. Individuals prone to anger are more

aggressive in their behavior (Bettencourt, Talley, Benjamin, & Valen-

tine, 2006), and this is true in relation to outcomes such as murder

(Berkowitz, 1993), child abuse (Nomellini & Katz, 1983), and domestic

violence (Barbour, Eckhardt, Davison, & Kassinove, 1998). Although

most experiences of anger are unlikely to produce destructive behav-

iors of this magnitude, high levels of dispositional anger have also been

linked to difficulties in romantic relationships (Baron et al., 2007) and

to cardiovascular disease, the major cause of death in modern societies

(T. W. Smith, Glazer, Ruiz, & Gallo, 2004; J. E. Williams et al., 2000).Thus, tendencies toward anger can apparently break a persons

heart in both a figurative and literal sense.

Given the destructive impact that anger often has, it is natural to

ask why it is that some people are more prone to anger than others.

Although there are certainly multiple root causes of individual

differences in angerincluding genetic, hormonal, and environmen-

tal factorsscholars dating back to Pythagoras and Confucius have

suggested that thought processes are likely to be involved as well andmay in fact mediate biological and environmental influences in this

regard (Dabbs & Dabbs, 2000; Dodge & Pettit, 2003; van Honk &

Schutter, 2007). Recent empirical work corroborates this point.

Cognitively oriented psychotherapies have been shown to be suc-

cessful in reducing an individuals tendency toward anger and reac-

tive aggression (A. T. Beck, 1999; R. Beck & Fernandez, 1998;

Deffenbacher, Dahlen, Lynch, Morris, & Gowensmith, 2000). Fur-

thermore, social cognitive approaches to such individual differences

have been supported in multiple subdisciplines of psychology

(Anderson & Bushman 2002; Berkowitz 1993; Blair Mitchell &

10 Wilkowski & Robinson


3/31


4/31

Trait anger also fits within broader dimensional approaches to

personality (Watson & Clark, 1992a, 1992b). Relevant to this

broader conception are the constructs of trait aggression and agree-

ableness. Trait aggression includes not only tendencies toward reac-tive aggression, the focus of our review, but also tendencies toward

what is termedproactive aggression, defined in terms of aggression in

the service of an instrumental goal (Dodge & Coie, 1987). Agree-

ableness is an even broader personality construct defined both in

terms of low anger and aggression as well as increased prosocial

thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997;

Watson & Clark, 1992b). Although trait aggression and agreeable-

ness are broader constructs than trait anger, we review relevant data

when it is apparent that they inform the anger-reactivity processes of

interest here. This is a necessary feature of our review because differ-

ent individual difference measures have been assessed across studies,

but our goal is to bring such data together within a common inte-

grative model.

AN INTEGRATIVE COGNITIVE MODEL OF TRAIT ANGER AND

REACTIVE AGGRESSION

Our Integrative Cognitive Model of trait anger (henceforth termed

the ICM: Wilkowski & Robinson, 2008a) is presented in Figure 1. At

the broadest level, a persons habitual cognitive processing tenden-

cies are seen as intervening between hostile situational input and re-

sultant tendencies toward anger and reactive aggression. The model

further points to cognitive processes that both exacerbate (solid lines)

and mitigate (dashed lines) reactivity to hostile situational input.Our model also considers the contribution of both automatic and

controlled processes. In making this distinction, we follow standard

conventions in the literature, which define processes as automatic

when they proceed spontaneously (i.e., without instruction), effi-

ciently (i.e., without consuming cognitive resources), and uncon-

sciously. However, it should also be noted that such criteria of

automaticity have been shown to be somewhat independent (Bargh,

1994; Zbrodoff & Logan, 1986). For this reason, we take efforts to

be precise concerning the relevant criteria of automaticity we are

referring to Regardless though the general distinction between



5/31

(Zbrodoff & Logan, 1986) and social cognition (Bargh, 1994) liter-

atures and thus serves as the most general heuristic framework for

our integrative efforts.

According to the ICM, the first process relevant to understandingtrait anger involves the interpretation of situational input. The

model specifically suggests that certain individuals are automatically

biased toward hostile interpretations of situational input, and this, in

turn, leads to the more frequent elicitation of anger among such in-

dividuals. This suggestion is, of course, consistent with attribution-

and appraisal-based models of emotion elicitation (Smith & Lazarus,

1990; Weiner, 1986) and parallel theorizing in the social cognition

literature on anger and aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 2002;Crick & Dodge, 1994). Furthermore, the proposal that this stage of

interpretation is automatic is consistent with social cognitive work

on the automaticity of social inference (Skowronski, Carlston, Mae,

& Crawford, 1998; Uleman, Blader, & Todorov, 2005), as will be

further discussed below.

The ICM next suggests that ruminative aspects of attention rein-

force interpretation-related biases, in turn amplifying anger and

prolonging the likelihood of reactive aggression. The suggestion that

ruminative processes increase anger and reactive aggression is con-

sistent with a wider literature on rumination and emotional reactiv-

Self-

Distraction

Amplification

Recruitm

ent

HostileInterpretation Anger

RuminativeAttention

EffortfulControl

Aggression,Anger

Expression

HostileSituation

Re-appraisal

Automatic

Interpretation

Captur

e

Elicitation

Suppression

Figure 1The Integrative Cognitive Model of trait anger and reactive aggres-

sion. Note: Solid lines depict pathways by which anger and reactive

aggression are increased, whereas dotted lines depict pathways by

which anger and reactive aggression are decreased.

Integrative Cognitive Model 13


6/31

Hoeksema, 1998). The ICM further suggests that anger-related ru-

mination can be understood in terms of selective attention processes,

a case that will be further developed below.

Finally, the ICM posits that effortful control processes are effec-tive in counteracting incipient tendencies toward anger and reactive

aggression. The idea that effortful control is important to emotional

regulation is consistent with emerging perspectives in the self-regu-

lation literature (Rueda, Posner, & Rothbart, 2004; Zelazo & Cun-

ningham, 2007). In concert with recent neurocognitive models

(Botvinick, Braver, Barch, Carter, & Cohen, 2001; Holroyd & Coles,

2002; Lieberman & Eisenberger, 2005), the ICM further contends

that effortful control is a limited capacity resource that typically lies

dormant, but can be recruited on a situation-specific basis. It is pro-

posed that recruiting cognitive control in hostile contexts is some-

what particular to low trait anger individuals.

There are at least three specific pathways by which effortful con-

trol would be of utility in hostile contexts. First, recruiting effortful

control resources should enable the reappraisal of situational input

in favor of a nonhostile interpretation (Anderson & Bushman, 2002;

Gross, 1998; Zillmann & Cantor, 1976). Second, the ICM posits that

effortful control can be used to interrupt ruminative attention pro-cesses, thus allowing individuals to distract themselves from hostile

thoughts (Davis & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2000; Posner & Rothbart,

2000; Siegle, Carter, & Thase, 2006). Finally, effortful control re-

sources can be used to suppress tendencies toward aggressive be-

havior (e.g., DeWall, Baumeister, Stillman, & Gailliot, 2007) and

expressive behavior indicative of anger arousal (e.g., facial expres-

sions; Gross, 1998). Our emphasis on effortful control processes re-

flects our general view that such processes are, in fact, of majorimportance in understanding why it is that some individuals are so

much more reactive to hostile situational input than others.

In summary, the ICM suggests that three cognitive processes

namely, hostile interpretations, ruminative attention, and effortful

controlare important in understanding individual differences in

trait anger and reactive aggression. In the sections that follow, we

review relevant data for each of these mechanisms considered sep-

arately. In each section, we first consider data related to self- or in-

formant-reported measures of the relevant cognitive process. We

then consider data related to performance within implicit cognitive



7/31

particular to self-report measures (Paulhus & John, 1998; Robinson

& Clore, 2002) but also allow us to make more specific conclusions

concerning the cognitive processes involved (Robinson, 2007).

Hostile Interpretations

Self-Report Evidence

The ICM incorporates suggestions that high trait anger individuals

are prone to hostile interpretations of relevant situational input. A

large body of developmental data supports this link, in that individ-

uals prone to reactive aggression perceive more hostile intent in cir-

cumstances where hostile intent is ambiguous (for reviews, see Crick

& Dodge, 1994; Orobio de Castro, Veerman, Koops, Bosch, &

Monshouwer, 2002). This tendency toward hostile interpretations

has also been found among adults prone to anger and reactive

aggression (Dill, Anderson, Anderson, & Deuser, 1997; Epps &

Kendall, 1995; Graziano, Hair, & Finch, 1997; Graziano, Jensen-

Campbell, & Hair, 1996; Hall & Davidson, 1996). Beyond the robust

nature of this relationship, three further points can be made.

First, research has converged on the idea that hostile interpreta-

tions are involved in the elicitation of anger (Rudolph, Roesch,Greitemeyer, & Weiner, 2004; C. A. Smith, Haynes, Lazarus, &

Pope, 1993). Individuals who make more hostile interpretations also

report higher levels of anger (Epps & Kendall, 1995; Graham,

Hudley, & Williams, 1992; Hazebroek, Howells, & Day, 2001).

Moreover, manipulations designed to increase the accessibility of

hostile interpretations increase angry reactions to relevant input

(Graham & Hudley, 1994; Meier & Robinson, 2004; Neumann,

2000). Finally, interventions designed to reduce this bias have beenshown to reduce angry reactions to ambiguously hostile situational

input (Hudley & Graham, 1993).

Additionally, there are a number of sources of data converging on

the point that the hostile interpretation bias increases aggressive be-

havior only to the extent that it increases anger. For example,

Graham et al. (1992) found that anger mediated the relationship

between hostile interpretations and aggressive behavior, and this

same conclusion has also been supported in a meta-analytic review

of the literature on attributions and emotion (Rudolph et al., 2004).

Furthermore studies have contrasted individuals who engage in re-



8/31

of aggression. These studies have found that the hostile interpreta-

tion bias is specific to those who exhibit aggressive behavior for re-

active, rather than proactive, reasons (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Dodge

& Coie, 1987; see also Hubbard et al., this issue).Of final note, there are sources of data consistent with the ICMs

emphasis on the automatic and efficient nature of the hostile inter-

pretation bias. Hazebroek et al. (2001) manipulated cognitive load,

which should disrupt controlled inference processes relative to au-

tomatic ones (e.g., Gilbert & Krull, 1988). They found that the load

manipulation had no effect on tendencies toward the hostile inter-

pretation bias. On the other hand, factors that increase controlled

processing among aggressive individuals have been shown to elim-

inate tendencies toward the hostile attribution bias. This includes

naturally existing tendencies toward a more careful and prolonged

information processing style (Dodge & Newman, 1981) as well as

manipulations that encourage the participant to think about the sit-

uation from a more objective, third-person perspective (Dodge &

Frame, 1982; Sancilio, Plumert, & Hartup, 1989). In sum, the hostile

interpretation bias appears to involve automatic processes rather

than controlled ones, a point that will be further substantiated next.

Implicit Cognitive Evidence

Above, we reviewed evidence consistent with the idea that the hostile

interpretation bias is reliant on automatic processes. However, any

form of self-report necessarily encourages controlled attention to the

relevant information (Bargh, 1989; Lieberman, 2007). For this rea-

son, it can be somewhat uncertain whether similar biases would oc-

cur with no instructions to report ones interpretation of thesituation at hand. Thus, it would be of use to document hostile

interpretation biases in the absence of any explicit instructions to

make such interpretations. Several studies have taken up this chal-

lenge, and the results have been supportive of the idea that the trait-

linked hostile interpretation bias is spontaneous in nature.

To date, five studies have used paradigms sensitive to the spon-

taneous nature of the anger-related hostile interpretation bias. Two

of these studies used memory-based paradigms and found that ag-

gressive individuals were more likely to recall ambiguously hostile

sentences when provided with memory cues suggestive of a hostile



9/31

& Cervone, 1995). A third study found that aggressive individuals

were more likely to indicate that a violent sentence was synonymous

in meaning with a previously presented sentence in which hostile

intent was actually ambiguous (Copello & Tata, 1990). Thesethree studies converge on the suggestion that individuals high in

reactive aggression spontaneously encode ambiguous material in a

hostile manner, even when there are no direct instructions to form

a social inference of any kind.

Wingrove and Bond (2005) used quite different procedures, de-

rived from the text comprehension literature (Zwaan & Radvansky,

1998), and converged on similar conclusions. They asked individuals

to read sentences, some of which were ambiguously hostile in nature.

To the extent that such sentences are interpreted in hostility-related

terms, participants should be faster to read subsequent sentences

reinforcing a hostile (relative to a nonhostile) interpretation of the

initial sentence. This pattern was found among individuals high in

trait anger but not among individuals low in trait anger.

Using an eye-tracking paradigm involving ambiguously hostile

visual scenes, Wilkowski, Robinson, Gordon, and Troop-Gordon

(2007) found conceptually similar results. In this case, individuals

high in trait anger exhibited difficulties processing nonhostile visualcues that were incompatible with an early hostile interpretation of

the ambiguously hostile scene. Thus, evidence from a variety of cog-

nitive paradigms suggests that individuals high in trait anger are

prone to early hostile interpretations, which, in turn, should rein-

force the likelihood of anger elicitation as well as behaviors reflective

of reactive aggression.

Ruminative Attention ProcessesSelf-Report Evidence

Appraisal and attribution models of emotion elicitation (C. A. Smith

& Lazarus, 1990; Weiner, 1986) have long contended that a biased

tendency to interpret situations in a hostile manner should lead to

increased anger and reactive aggression, consistent with the analysis

presented above. However, the ICM also suggests that there are

other cognitive processing tendencies involved in the determination

of trait anger levels. In the present context, we concern ourselves

with processes related to rumination conceptualized in terms of



10/31

& Nolen-Hoeksema, 1998). To the extent that one engages in such

angry ruminations, tendencies toward anger and reactive aggression

should be prolonged and intensified (Bushman, 2002).

The idea that ruminative processes reinforce tendencies towardanger and reactive aggression has considerable support. Social cog-

nitive studies have manipulated ruminative processes and, in turn,

found that such manipulations prolong and intensify the effects of

provocation on state anger and reactive aggression (Bushman, 2002;

Bushman, Bonacci, Pedersen, Vasquez, & Miller, 2005; Rusting &

Nolen-Hoeksema, 1998). Similar results have been reported in the

trait anger literature. In this literature, several self-report measures

of dispositional tendencies toward anger-related rumination have

been developed, and these measures invariably correlate positively

with both trait anger and measures of reactive aggression (Caprara,

1986; Denson, Pedersen, & Miller, 2006; Linden et al., 2003;

Sukhodolsky, Golub, & Cromwell, 2001).

Moreover, self-report scales of anger-rumination tendencies also

predict objective, laboratory-based measures of prolonged tenden-

cies toward anger and reactive aggression. For example, Gerin,

Davidson, Chistenfeld, Goyal, and Schwartz (2006) found that

self-reported ruminative tendencies predicted delayed recoveryfrom an anger induction, as manifest in prolonged levels of cardio-

vascular arousal following the induction. Other laboratory studies

have employed objective measures of aggressive behavior and dem-

onstrate that, following provocation, self-reported rumination pre-

dicts prolonged tendencies toward retaliatory aggression (Collins &

Bell, 1997) and a greater likelihood of displaced aggression (Denson

et al., 2006). In sum, there is considerable support for the idea that

hostility-related rumination exacerbates tendencies toward angerand reactive aggression and does so in both state- and trait-related

terms. The processing basis of rumination has often been uncertain,

but in the next section we suggest that it likely relates to selective

attention processes reinforcing hostile thoughts and feelings after

they occur.


There are reasons for thinking that rumination involves selective at-

tention processes favoring a particular type of affective input



11/31

support of this point, manipulations of rumination encourage con-

tinued processing of a particular affective experience or stimulus

(e.g., a prior negative emotion induction: see Nolen-Hoeksema,

1991). Rumination manipulations are typically compared to thoseencouraging distraction, which are known to facilitate attentional

disengagement from affective states or stimuli (Mischel & Ayduk,

2004). The ICM incorporates such considerations by suggesting that

individuals high in trait anger should display selective attention pro-

cesses favoring hostile information, which, in turn, should facilitate

rumination in relation to them (Wilkowski & Robinson, 2008a).

Data are in support of this cognitive view of rumination.

Several relevant studies have used variants of the emotional

Stroop task, in which individuals are asked to name the color of

stimuli while ignoring their affective meaning ( J. M. G. Williams,

Mathews, & MacLeod, 1996). Difficulties disengaging attention are

inferred from slower color-naming latencies for a given type of

affective stimulus (e.g., one involving hostile meaning). When tasks

of this type have been used, it has been found that individuals higher

in trait anger display delayed color-naming performance when the

stimulus involves an angry facial expression (Putman, Hermans, &

van Honk, 2004; van Honk, Tuiten, de Haan, van den Hout,& Stam, 2001) or a hostile word (Eckhardt & Cohen, 1997; P. Smith

& Waterman, 2003, 2005; van Honk, Tuiten, van den Hout, et al.,

2001).

Visual search tasks have also been used. In such studies, it has

been found that individuals higher in trait anger were slower to lo-

cate a neutral target stimulus when it was surrounded by distracters

of a hostile nature (Cohen, Eckhardt, & Schagat, 1998; P. Smith &

Waterman, 2004). Additionally, affective versions of the spatial cu-ing task (Posner, Snyder, & Davidson, 1980) have been used. Such

studies have found that violent criminals (P. Smith & Waterman,

2003) and individuals high in trait anger (Cohen et al., 1998;

P. Smith & Waterman, 2003) were faster to respond to spatial

probes replacing hostile relative to nonhostile stimuli. Such results

again support the posited link of individual differences in anger and

reactive aggression to selective attention processes favoring hostile

stimuli.

Beyond such evidence, the ICM contends that anger-related at-

tention biases are likely to reflect difficulties disengaging attention



12/31

data involving the importance of ruminative processes, which occur

subsequent to an emotional induction (Bushman, 2002; Rusting &

Nolen-Hoeksema, 1998). This suggestion is also consistent with re-

cent data of ours (Wilkowski, Robinson, & Meier, 2006). In the rel-evant study, we used a modified spatial cuing task that first fixated

participants attention on a hostile word and then assessed their

ability to disengage attention from such words. The results indicated

that individuals with greater tendencies toward anger were slower to

disengage attention from hostile stimuli.

Thus, results of prior studies support the ICMs suggestion that

hostility-related biases can be linked to the disengagement stage of

attention, consistent with a ruminative process. We do note, how-

ever, that such results do not rule out earlier attentional biases that

might occur prior to semantic processing (e.g., Dodge, 1991). In fact,

the results of two studies are consistent with the idea that high trait

anger individuals may sometimes exhibit attentional biases for angry

faces even in cases in which emotional stimuli are subliminally pre-

sented (Putman et al., 2004; van Honk, Tuiten, de Hann, et al.,

2001). Other research, however, has shown that such subliminal bi-

ases are circumscribed in nature. For example, subliminally flashed

hostile words do not result in attentional biases related to trait anger(van Honk, Tuiten, van den Hout, et al., 2001). More research is

thus needed to evaluate the scope and significance of subliminal at-

tentional biases. In the meantime, we suggest that data are most

robust in linking trait anger to difficulties disengaging attention from

supraliminally presented hostile stimuli.

Effortful Control Processes

Self- or Other-Report Evidence

Effortful control is a limited capacity resource that can be used to

override tendencies deemed problematic to the wider goals of the

individual (Posner & Rothbart, 2000). Rothbart (1989) first sug-

gested that superior abilities related to effortful control may be use-

ful in overriding tendencies toward anger and reactive aggression.

Typically, effortful control has been conceptualized in terms of a

stable trait that is presumably constant across all situations (Eisen-

berg, Smith, Sadovsky, & Spinrad, 2004; Posner & Rothbart, 2000).

Most of the data reviewed below follow from this trait view though



13/31

Developmental psychologists typically assess effortful control

abilities via parental or teacher reports. Studies assessing effortful

control in this manner have consistently found an inverse relation

between individual differences in effortful control and individualdifferences in both anger and reactive aggression. For example, in-

verse relations have been reported with respect to observer-reported

trait anger (Rothbart, Ahadi, & Hershey, 1994), observer-reported

trait aggression (Eisenberg et al., 1996; Rothbart et al., 1994),

and behavioral signs of anger within a frustrating situation (Cal-

kins, Dedmon, Gill, Lomax, & Johnson, 2002). Moreover, parental

or teacher reports of effortful control have been linked to more

effective coping styles in potentially angering situations (Eisenberg,

Fabes, Nyman, Bernzweig, & Pinuelas, 1994) and to higher levels of

observer-reported agreeableness (Ahadi & Rothbart, 1994).

In the adulthood literature, effortful control and related con-

structs are also frequently assessed by trait self-report. In relevant

studies, it has been reported that higher levels of self-reported effort-

ful control are inversely correlated with self-reports of anger and

reactive aggression (Rothbart, Ahadi, & Evans, 2000). Similarly,

higher levels of dispositional self-control have been found to be neg-

atively correlated with trait anger (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone,2004). In more objective behavioral terms, high levels of self-

reported impulsivity (which likely reflect poor effortful control abil-

ities; Watson & Clark, 1999) have been found to predict higher levels

of reactive aggression in laboratory studies using well-validated be-

havioral tasks (Bettencourt et al., 2006). Thus, there are sources of

support, in both developmental and adulthood personality litera-

tures, for an inverse relation between effortful control and tendencies

toward reactive aggression.


Effortful control can be assessed objectively through the use of be-

havioral tasks that measure an individuals ability to override an

inappropriate response (Posner & Rothbart, 2000; Rueda et al.,

2004). The classic Stroop (1935) interference task or the Wisconsin

Card Sorting Task (Milner, 1963) are frequently used in this regard.

Cognitive studies have sought to examine the hypothesis that diffi-

culties in such tasks should be predictive of higher levels of anger and



14/31

(Kandel & Freed, 1982; Lilienfeld, 1992), a recent meta-analysis

clearly establishes an inverse relationship between effortful control

and antisocial behavioral tendencies (Morgan & Lilienfeld, 2000).

The latter clinical studies have typically focused on abnormalvariations in tendencies toward broad forms of antisocial behavior,

including those particular to diagnosed psychopaths or prisoner

populations (Morgan & Lilienfeld, 2000). There are reasonable con-

cerns, then, as to whether such findings are relevant to the specific

domain of anger and reactive aggression, particularly among non-

clinical samples. However, as indicated next, data of this type have

increasingly been reported.

Individuals displaying effortful control difficulties (e.g., on Stroop

conflict trials) have been shown to be lower in agreeableness

(Cumberland-Li, Eisenberg, & Reiser, 2004; Jensen-Campbell et al.,

2002), higher in levels of aggression generally considered

(Giancola, Mezzich, & Tarter, 1998; Se guin, Boulerice, Harden,

Tremblay, & Pihl, 1999; Toupin, De ry, Pauze , Mercier, & Fortin,

2000), reactive aggression specifically considered (Giancola, Moss,

Martin, Kirisci, & Tarter, 1996), and trait anger (Gerardi-Caulton,

2000; Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan, 2000). Impressively, many

studies have found that such inverse relations remain significant evenafter controlling for ADHD status, IQ, and verbal or spatial abilities

(Giancola et al., 1998; Se guin et al., 1999). In sum, there is increasing

cognitive support for the idea that there is an inverse relation

between effortful control abilities and trait anger.

Toward a Dynamic View of Effortful Control

Although effortful control is typically viewed as a trait that is some-what constantly operative across various situational contexts, this

trait-related view does not appear to be consistent with data reported

in the cognitive neuroscience literature. From the perspective of such

studies, effortful control is a resource that typically lies dormant

until it is recruited in a situation-specific manner (Botvinick et al.,

2001). For example, behavioral, electroencephalogram-related, and

neuroimaging sources of data all converge on the point that the an-

terior cingulate cortex recruits frontal lobe resources in specific sit-

uations where cognitive conflict has been detected (Carter et al.,

1998; Gratton Coles & Donchin 1992; Kerns et al 2004) From



15/31

control as a resource that is constantly active across various situa-

tions (Lieberman, 2007; Lieberman & Eisenberger, 2005).

Drawing from this dynamic view of effortful control, the ICM

proposes that individuals differ in the extent to which activated hos-tile thoughts lead to the recruitment of effortful control resources.

Whether due to differences in socialization, genetics, or motivation,

the claim is that individuals low in trait anger have developed a ha-

bitual tendency to recruit effortful control resources following the

activation of hostile thoughts. By contrast, it is suggested that high

trait anger individuals fail to recruit effortful control resources in

hostility-related contexts.

Recent studies conducted by Wilkowski and Robinson (2007)

support this dynamic processing view. In their first investigation,

these authors focused on the ability of individuals low in trait anger

to override hostile thoughts within an implicit cognitive task. Par-

ticipants were first primed with hostile or nonhostile thoughts. The

authors then assessed whether this priming manipulation influenced

subsequent word evaluations. When participants were given unlim-

ited time to complete their ratings, individuals low in trait anger ex-

hibited a reduced tendency toward hostility-related priming effects,

relative to individuals high in trait anger. When participants werenot permitted sufficient time to recruit and use effortful control,

however, low trait anger participants now exhibited hostility-related

priming effects equivalent in magnitude to those high in trait anger.

Such findings indicate that low trait anger individuals spontaneously

down-regulate the influence of hostile thoughts, but they can only do

so only when there is sufficient time to recruit and use effortful con-

trol resources.

The data of Wilkowski and Robinson (2007) were conceptuallyreplicated in a subsequent set of studies reported by Wilkowski and

Robinson (2008b). In these latter studies, hostile or nonhostile

thoughts were first activated prior to the assessment of effortful

control. In these studies, classic measures of effortful controlbased

on task-switching costs (Rogers & Monsell, 1995) and flanker inter-

ference effects (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974)were administered. Fol-

lowing nonhostile primes, there were no differences by trait anger.

As hypothesized, though, individuals low in trait anger exhibited

higher levels of effortful control (i.e., a greater ability to override

inappropriate responses) following hostile primes In sum our more



16/31

suggesting that individuals low in trait anger recruit effortful control

in a manner specifically suited to the down-regulation of hostile

thoughts.

In general terms, results reviewed here support the following con-clusions. Effortful control is best understood as a flexible resource

that is recruited in specific contexts. Those low in trait anger appear

to recruit effortful control resources when there is the possibility of

hostility-related biases toward anger and reactive aggression. By

contrast, high trait anger individuals do not appear to recruit effort-

ful control resources in a manner that would be of use in controlling

their hostile thoughts. In sum, the ICM views the control of hostile

thoughts as dependent on the recruitment of effortful control re-

sources within hostile contexts, which we posit to be unique to low

trait anger individuals.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Our review focused on the integrative role that the ICM plays in

organizing the existing literature on trait anger and its cognitive

processing basis. Consistent with appraisal and attributions theories

(C. A. Smith & Lazarus, 1990; Weiner, 1986), the ICM suggests that

automatic hostile attributions are fundamental to the elicitation of

anger. However, the ICM suggests that there is much more to cog-

nition than appraisals and attributions, thus addressing concerns

that such frameworks are too narrow in accounting for the manner

in which reactive aggression often occurs (Berkowitz, 1993; Berko-

witz & Harmon-Jones, 2004). In the sections that follow, we turn our

attention to broader issues that may be of use in further validating

the ICM and extending the cognitive perspective advocated here.

Further Predictions of the Model

The ICM was primarily proposed to summarize and organize a di-

verse set of cognitive research pertaining to individual differences in

anger and reactive aggression. However, we also believe that the

model generates several novel and important predictions for future

research. In making this point, we draw on Davidsons (1999)

concept of affective style. According to this concept, individual

differences in emotion can be decomposed in terms of separate pa-



17/31

Oishi, Diener, & Suh, 2000, for evidence that these parameters of

emotion function differently). In the present context, some individ-

uals may experience the initial elicitation of anger rather frequently,

but they may be quite adept at recovering from angry experiencesquickly. For other individuals, however, the initial elicitation of an-

ger may be more infrequent, but they may instead display consid-

erable difficulty recovering from the experience of anger once

elicited. From this perspective, then, high trait anger individuals

may be angry and aggressive for different reasons.

The ICM offers a principled basis for understanding such distinct

routes to anger and reactive aggression. From the perspective of the

ICM, automatic hostile interpretations should primarily contribute

to an understanding of individual differences in the frequency of

anger elicitation. Specifically, individuals possessing this bias should

react with more anger to situations that are only ambiguously hostile

in nature. By contrast, this processing bias should not be sufficient

for understanding reactivity to clearly hostile situations (Dodge,

1980). Also, this processing bias should not be important in under-

standing the duration of the anger-related experience or, potentially,

its intensity once aroused.

On the other hand, the ICM proposes that individual differencesin anger intensity and its duration are likely to be better captured by

processes related to ruminative attention and effortful control. Ru-

mination is thought to prolong and intensify angry reactions. In re-

lated terms, the recruitment of effortful control is thought to allow

an individual to more effectively down-regulate the experience of

antisocial affect over time. Thus, these cognitive processing tenden-

cies should be better predictors of anger intensity and duration than

the frequency of anger elicitation. Wilkowski, Robinson, and Troop-Gordon (2008) recently reported results consistent with this tempo-

ral set of predictions.

Interactive predictions can also be made on the basis of the ICM.

For example, the individual who displays both a hostile interpreta-

tion bias and effortful control deficiencies should exhibit the most

pronounced tendencies toward anger and reactive aggression. By

contrast, individuals who recruit effortful control in hostile situa-

tions should be more capable of minimizing influences of the hostile

interpretation bias.

In short we advocate studies in which multiple processing mech-



18/31

Such work would better delineate the manner in which relevant pro-

cessing biases additively or interactively predict tendencies toward

anger. As indicated above, such work would be further informed by

anger assessments capable of differentiating the frequency, intensity,and duration of anger.

Broader Considerations

The ICM is, by its very nature, a cognitive model, not directly con-

cerned with noncognitive determinants of dispositional anger and

reactive aggression. Although we believe that this focus is desirable

and helps to sustain theoretical progress, it is also true that taking a

broader perspective may help to link our processing framework to

other important perspectives on anger and reactive aggression. In a

previous review (Wilkowski & Robinson, 2008a), we presented con-

siderations in favor of the potential role of ICM processes in

understanding genetic and early environmental influences on anger

and reactive aggression. We also suggested that the processes of the

ICM may have relevance to understanding why it is that high trait

anger individuals often create their own hostile interpersonal envi-

ronment (Baron et al., 2007; T. W. Smith et al., 2004). Rather thanrevisiting such material here, we instead focus on a novel integrative

effort related to potential links between cognitive and motivational

determinants of anger and reactive aggression.

In recent years, cognitive analyses of anger have met with some

reasonable resistance (Berkowitz & Harmon-Jones, 2004). Such crit-

icisms often target views of the cognitive determinants of anger that

are solely attributional in nature (Berkowitz, 1993). In the present

case, it should be apparent that the ICM redresses this concern byfocusing on other processes aside from attributional biases. How-

ever, it has also been suggested that a purely cognitive analysis may

fail to capture the motivational basis of anger, which can be thought

of in terms of approaching provoking individuals with the goal of

extracting revenge (Blanchard & Blanchard, 1984; Moyer, 1976) or

forcefully removing obstacles to goal attainment (Lewis, Sullivan,

Ramsey, & Alessandri, 1992).

In attempting to reconcile cognitive and motivational views of anger

and reactive aggression, we first make the point that motivational

processes appear to be quite amenable to a social cognitive analysis of



19/31


20/31

nizing that further work is necessary, we suggest that the ICM may

be of use in understanding how anger-linked approach motives are

activated, maintained, and inhibited.

Applications of the ICM

Higher levels of trait anger have been linked to a variety of prob-

lematic outcomes, such as aggressive behavior, difficulties in social

relationships, and cardiovascular disease (Baron et al., 2007; Betten-

court et al., 2006; T. W. Smith et al., 2004). However, much more

work is necessary to understand the mechanisms involved (alAbsi &

Bongard, 2006; T. W. Smith et al., 2004). Here, we consider the role

of cognitive processes in accounting for and potentially mediating

such adverse outcomes.

Multiple literatures have converged on the idea that the frequency

of anger elicitation is less problematic than the intensity and dura-

tion of this experience. In the cardiovascular literature, increases in

heart rate and blood pressure immediately following provocation are

often thought to be adaptive, but prolonged cardiovascular reactiv-

ity is thought to be damaging to arterial tissue (Brosschet & Thayer,

1998; Linden, Earle, Gerin, & Christenfeld, 1997). In similar terms,

the literature on close relationships has converged on the idea thatthe initial elicitation of anger in hostile situations is relatively normal

and unproblematic (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989). By contrast, an in-

ability to forgive transgressions (Bono, McCullough, & Root, 2008;

Fincham, Hall, & Beach, 2006; Karremans, & van Lange, 2004) or

harboring grudges over time (Fischer & Roseman, 2007; Gottman &

Krokoff, 1989) has been shown to be truly problematic.

Accordingly, the elicitation of anger, which we have linked to

automatic hostile interpretations, is potentially problematic. How-ever, we propose that it is far more problematic to ruminate on

hostile thoughts (Gerin et al., 2006) or to be incapable of controlling

ones anger after it arises (Wilkowski & Robinson, 2008a). For such

reasons, we generally emphasize the importance of ruminative at-

tention and effortful control processes in understanding the adverse

social- and health-related outcomes linked to anger.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review focused on the utility of an Integrative Cognitive Model



21/31

aggression. The ICM identifies three cognitive processesnamely,

hostile interpretations, ruminative processes, and effortful control

that are thought to determine individual differences in anger and

reactive aggression. The review highlighted the integrative potentialof this process-based model and also pointed to new research direc-

tions that should be vigorously pursued. The general conclusion is

that anger and reactive aggression appear especially amenable to a

process-based analysis.

REFERENCES

Ahadi, S., & Rothbart, M. K. (1994). Temperament, development and the Big

Five. In C. F. Halverson, D. Kohnstamm, & R. Martin (Eds.), Development

of the structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood

(pp. 189208). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

alAbsi, M., & Bongard, S. (2006). Neuroendocrine and behavioral mechanisms

mediating the relationship between anger expression and cardiovascular risk:

Assessment considerations and improvements.Journal of Behavioral Medicine,

29, 573591.

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of

Psychology, 53, 2751.

Barbour, K. A., Eckhardt, C. I., Davison, G. C., & Kassinove, H. (1998). The

experience and expression of anger in maritally violent and maritally discor-

dant-nonviolent men. Behavior Therapy, 29, 173191.

Bargh, J. A. (1989). Conditional automaticity: Varieties of automatic influence in

social perception and cognition. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unin-

tended thought (pp. 351). New York: Guilford Press.

Bargh, J. A. (1990). Auto-motives: Preconscious determinants of thought and

behavior. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.),Handbook of motivation

and cognition(Vol. 2, pp. 93130). New York: Guilford Press.

Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention,

efficiency, and control in social cognition. In R. S. Wyer Jr. & T. K. Srull(Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (pp. 140). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baron, K. G., Smith, T. W., Butner, J., Nealey-Moore, J., Hawkins, M. W., &

Uchino, B. N. (2007). Hostility, anger, and marital adjustment: Concurrent

and prospective associations with psychosocial vulnerability. Journal of Be-

havioral Medicine, 30, 110.

Beck, A. T. (1999). Prisoners of hate: The cognitive basis of anger, hostility, and

violence. New York: HarperCollins.

Beck, R., & Fernandez, E. (1998). Cognitive-behavioral therapy in the treatment

of anger: A meta-analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 22, 6374.

Berkowitz, L. (1993).Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Berkowitz L & Harmon Jones E (2004) Toward an understanding of the de



22/31

Bettencourt, B. A., Talley, A., Benjamin, A. J., & Valentine, J. (2006). Personality

and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: A meta-

analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 751777.

Blair, J., Mitchell, D., & Blair, K. (2005).The psychopath: Emotion and the brain.

Malden, MA: Blackwell.Blanchard, D. C., & Blanchard, R. J. (1984). Affect and aggression: An animal model

applied to human behavior. Advances in the Study of Aggression, 1, 162.

Bono, G., McCullough, M. E., & Root, L. M. (2008). Forgiveness, feeling con-

nected to others, and well-being: Two longitudinal studies. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 182195.

Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001).

Conflict monitoring and cognitive control.Psychological Review, 108, 624652.

Brosschet, J. F., & Thayer, J. F. (1998). Anger inhibition, cardiovascular recovery,

and vagal function: A model of the link between hostility and cardiovascular

disease. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 20, 326332.Bushman, B. J. (2002). Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis,

rumination, distraction, anger, and aggressive responding. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 724731.

Bushman, B. J., Bonacci, A. M., Pedersen, W. C., Vasquez, E. A., & Miller, N.

(2005). Chewing on it can chew you up: Effects of rumination on triggered dis-

placed aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 969983.

Calkins, S. D., Dedmon, S. E., Gill, K., Lomax, L. E., & Johnson, L. M. (2002).

Frustration in infancy: Implications for emotion regulation, physiological pro-

cesses, and temperament. Infancy, 3, 175197.

Caprara, G. V. (1986). Indicators of aggression: The dissipation-rumination scale.

Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 763769.

Carter, C. S., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Botvinick, M. M., Noll, D., & Cohen, J.

D. (1998). Anterior cingulate cortex, error detection, and the online monitor-

ing of performance. Science, 280, 747749.

Cohen, D. J., Eckhardt, C. I., & Schagat, K. D. (1998). Attention allocation and

habituation to anger-related stimuli during a visual search task. Aggressive

Behavior, 24, 399409.

Collins, K., & Bell, R. (1997). Personality and aggression: The dissipation-

rumination scale. Personality and Individual Differences,22

, 751755.Copello, A. G., & Tata, P. R. (1990). Violent behavior and interpretative bias: An

experimental study of the resolution of ambiguity in violent offenders. British

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29, 417428.

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social

information processing mechanisms in childrens social adjustment. Psycho-

logical Bulletin, 115, 74101.

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information-processing mechanisms

in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67, 9931002.

Cumberland-Li, A., Eisenberg, N., & Reiser, M. (2004). Relations of young

childrens agreeableness and resiliency to effortful control and impulsivity.Social Development, 13, 193212.

Dabbs J M & Dabbs M G (2000) Heroes rogues and lovers: Testosterone and



23/31

DAlfonso, A., van Honk, J., Hermans, E. J., Postma, A., & de Haan, E. (2000).

Laterality effects in selective attention to threat after rTMS at the prefrontal

cortex. Neuroscience Letters, 280, 195198.

Davidson, R. J. (1999). Neuropsychological perspectives on affective styles and

their cognitive consequences. In T. Dalgleish & M. J. Power (Eds.), Handbookof cognition and emotion (pp. 103124). West Sussex, UK: Wiley.

Davis, R. N., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2000). Cognitive inflexibility among rumi-

nators and nonruminators. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 699711.

Deffenbacher, J. L. (1992). Trait anger: Theory, findings, and implications. In

C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment

(Vol. 9, pp. 177201). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Deffenbacher, J. L., Dahlen, E. R., Lynch, R. S., Morris, C. D., & Gowensmith,

W. N. (2000). An application of Becks cognitive therapy to general anger re-

duction. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 689697.

Denson, T. F., Pedersen, W. C., & Miller, N. (2006). The displaced aggressionquestionnaire.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 10321051.

DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Stillman, T., & Gailliot, M. T. (2007). Violence

restrained: Effects of self-regulation and its depletion on aggression. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 6276.

Dill, K. E., Anderson, C. A., Anderson, K. B., & Deuser, W. E. (1997). Effects of

aggressive personality on social expectations and social perceptions. Journal of

Research in Personality, 31, 272292.

Dodge, K. A. (1980). Social cognition and childrens aggressive behavior. Child

Development, 51, 162170.

Dodge, K. A. (1991). The structure and function of reactive and proactive

aggression. In D. Pepler & K. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment

of childhood aggression (pp. 201218). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social information-processing factors in re-

active and proactive aggression in childrens playgroups.Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 53, 11461158.

Dodge, K. A., & Frame, C. L. (1982). Social cognitive biases and deficits in ag-

gressive boys. Child Development, 52, 620635.

Dodge, K. A., & Newman, J. P. (1981). Biased decision making processes in ag-

gressive boys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,90

, 375379.Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (2003). A biopsychosocial model of the development

of chronic conduct problems in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 39,

349371.

Eckhardt, C. I., & Cohen, D. J. (1997). Attention to anger-relevant and irrelevant

stimuli following naturalistic insult. Personality and Individual Differences, 23,

619629.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I., Murphy, B. C., Maszk, P., Holmgren, R.,

et al. (1996). The relations of regulation and emotionality to problem behavior

in elementary school children. Development and Psychopathology, 8,

141162.Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Nyman, M., Bernzweig, J., & Pinuelas, A. (1994).

The relations of emotionality and regulation to childrens anger-related reac-



24/31

Eisenberg, N., Smith, C. L., Sadovsky, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Effortful

control: Relations with emotion regulation, adjustment, and socialization

in childhood. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of

self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 259282). New York:

Guilford.Epps, J., & Kendall, P. C. (1995). Hostile attribution bias in adults. Cognitive

Therapy and Research, 19, 159178.

Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the iden-

tification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception and Psychophysics,

16, 143149.

Fincham, F. D., Hall, J., & Beach, S. R. H. (2006). Forgiveness in marriage:

Current status and future directions. Family Relations, 55, 415427.

Finkel, E. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Self-control and accommodation in close

relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 81, 263277.Fischer, A. H., & Roseman, I. J. (2007). Beat them or ban them: The characteristic

and social functions of anger and contempt. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 93, 103115.

Franklin, B. (1734). Poor Richards almanack. Philadelphia: Author.

Freud, S. (1964). Civilization and its discontents. Oxford, UK: W.W. Norton.

Gawrylewski, A. (2007). Biology department embroiled in controversy. The Sci-

entist.com. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from http://www.the-scientist.com/

news/home/53383/

Gerardi-Caulton, G. (2000). Sensitivity to spatial conflict and the development

of self-regulation in children 2436 months of age. Developmental Science, 3,

397404.

Gerin, W., Davidson, K. W., Christenfeld, N. J. S., Goyal, T., & Schwartz, J. E.

(2006). The role of angry rumination and distraction in blood pressure recov-

ery from emotional arousal. Psychosomatic Medicine, 68, 6472.

Giancola, P. R., Mezzich, A. C., & Tarter, R. E. (1998). Executive cognitive

functioning, temperament, and antisocial behavior in conduct-disordered ad-

olescent females. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 629641.

Giancola, P. R., Moss, H. B., Martin, C. S., Kirisci, L., & Tarter, R. E. (1996).

Executive cognitive functioning predicts reactive aggression in boys at high riskfor substance abuse: A prospective study.Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimen-

tal Research, 20, 740744.

Gilbert, D. T., & Krull, D. S. (1988). Seeing less and knowing more: The benefits

of perceptual ignorance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,

193202.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple

plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493503.

Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. (1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction:

A longitudinal view. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 57,

4752.Graham, S., & Hudley, C. (1994). Attributions of aggressive and nonagressive

African-American male early adolescents: A study of construct accessibility

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53383/http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53383/http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53383/http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53383/


25/31


26/31

Kochanska, G., Murray, K. L., & Harlan, E. T. (2000). Effortful control in early

childhood: Continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social

development. Developmental Psychology, 36, 220232.

Kuhl, J. (2000). A functional-design approach to motivation and volition: The

dynamics of personality systems interactions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich,& M. Zeidner (Eds.), Self-regulation: Directions and challenges for future re-

search (pp. 111169). New York: Academic Press.

Lang, P. J. (1995). The emotion probe: Studies of motivation and attention.

American Psychologist, 50, 372385.

Lewis, M., Sullivan, M. W., Ramsey, D. S., & Alessandri, S. M. (1992). Individual

differences in anger and sad expressions during extinction: Antecedents and

consequences.Infant Behavior and Development, 15, 443452.

Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Social cognitive neuroscience: A review of core pro-

cesses. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 259289.

Lieberman, M. D., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2005). Conflict and habit: A social cog-nitive neuroscience approach to the self. In A. Tesser, J. V. Wood, & D. A.

Stapel (Eds.), On building, defending and regulating the self: A psychological

perspective (pp. 77102). New York: Psychology Press.

Lilienfeld, S. O. (1992). The association between antisocial personality and so-

matization disorders: A review and integration of theoretical models. Clinical

Psychology Review, 12, 641662.

Linden, W., Earle, T. L., Gerin, W., & Christenfeld, N. (1997). Physiological

stress reactivity and recovery: Conceptual siblings separated at birth? Journal

of Psychosomatic Research, 42, 117135.

Linden, W., Hogan, B. E., Rutledge, T., Chawla, A., Lenz, J. W., & Leung, D.

(2003). There is more to anger coping than in or out. Emotion, 3, 1229.

Matthews, G., & Wells, A. (1999). The cognitive science of attention and emotion.

In T. Dalgleish & M. J. Power (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp.

171192). New York: Wiley.

McCullough, M. E., Bono, G., & Root, L. M. (2007). Rumination, emotion, and

forgiveness: Three longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 92, 490505.

McCullough, M. E., & Hoyt, W. T. (2002). Transgression-related motivational

dispositions: Personality substrates of forgiveness and their links to the BigFive. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 15561573.

Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D. (2004). Does quick to blame mean quick to

anger? The role of agreeableness in dissociating blame and anger. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 856867.

Milner, B. (1963). Effects of different brain lesions on card sorting: The role of the

frontal lobes. Archives of Neurology, 9, 90100.

Mischel, W., & Ayduk, O. (2004). Willpower in a cognitive-affective processing

system: The dynamics of delay of gratification. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D.

Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 99129). New York: Guilford

Press.Morgan, A. B., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2000). A meta-analytic review of the relation

between antisocial behavior and neuropsychological measures of executive



27/31

Moskowitz, G. B., Li, P., & Kirk, E. R. (2004). The implicit volition model: On

the preconscious regulation of temporarily adopted goals. Advances in Exper-

imental Social Psychology, 36, 317413.

Moyer, K. E. (1976). The psychology of aggression. New York: Harper & Row.

Mytelka, A. (2007). Angry academic acquitted after attack against administrator.Chronicle of Higher Education News Blog. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from

http://chronicle.com/news/article/3322/angry-academic-acquitted-after-at-

tack-against-administrator

Neumann, R. (2000). The causal influences of attributions on emotions: A pro-

cedural priming approach. Psychological Science, 11, 179182.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1991). Responses to depression and their effects on the du-

ration of depressive episodes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 569582.

Nomellini, S., & Katz, R. C. (1983). Effects of anger control training on abusive

parents. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 7, 5767.

Orobio de Castro, B., Veerman, J. W., Koops, W., Bosch, J. D., & Monshouwer,H. J. (2002). Hostile attribution of intent and aggressive behavior: A meta-

analysis. Child Development, 73, 916934.

Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998). Egoistic and moralistic biases in self-per-

ception: The interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives.

Journal of Personality, 66, 10251060.

Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2000). Developing mechanisms of self-regu-

lation. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 427441.

Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detec-

tion of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 160174.

Putman, P., Hermans, E., & van Honk, J. (2004). Emotional Stroop performance

for masked angry faces: Its BAS not BIS. Emotion, 4, 305311.

Robinson, M. D. (2007). Personality, affective processing, and self-regulation:

Toward process-based views of extraversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness.

Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 223235.

Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: Evidence for an ac-

cessibility model of emotional self-report.Psychological Bulletin, 128, 934960.

Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple

cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207231.

Rothbart, M. K. (1989). Temperament and development. In G. A. Kohnstamm, J.E. Bates, & M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Temperament in childhood (pp. 187247).

New York: Wiley.

Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Evans, D. E. (2000). Temperament and per-

sonality: Origins and outcomes.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

78, 122135.

Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Hershey, K. L. (1994). Temperament and social

behavior in childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 2139.

Rudolph, U., Roesch, S. C., Greitemeyer, T., & Weiner, B. (2004). A meta-an-

alytic review of help giving and aggression from an attributional perspective:

Contributions to a general theory of motivation. Cognition and Emotion, 18,815848.

Rueda M R Posner M I & Rothbart M K (2004) Attentional control and

http://chronicle.com/news/article/3322/angry-academic-acquitted-after-attack-against-administratorhttp://chronicle.com/news/article/3322/angry-academic-acquitted-after-attack-against-administratorhttp://chronicle.com/news/article/3322/angry-academic-acquitted-after-attack-against-administratorhttp://chronicle.com/news/article/3322/angry-academic-acquitted-after-attack-against-administrator


28/31

regulation: Research, theory, and applications(pp. 283300). New York: Guil-

ford Press.

Rusting, C. L., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1998). Regulating responses to anger:

Effects of rumination and distraction on angry mood. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 74, 790803.Sancilio, F. M., Plumert, J. M., & Hartup, W. W. (1989). Friendship and aggres-

siveness as determinants of conflict outcomes in middle childhood. Develop-

mental Psychology, 25, 812819.

Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (2000). Facets of affective ex-

periences: A framework for investigations of trait affect.Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 26, 655668.

Segal, Z. V., Teasdale, J. D., & Williams, J. M. G. (2004). Mindfulness-based

cognitive therapy: Theoretical rationale and empirical status. In S. C. Hayes,

V. M. Follette, & M. M. Linehan (Eds.), Mindfulness and acceptance: Ex-

panding the cognitive-behavioral tradition (pp. 4565). New York: GuilfordPress.

Se guin, J. R., Boulerice, B., Harden, P., Tremblay, R. E., & Pihl, R. O. (1999).

Executive functions and physical aggression after controlling for attention

deficit hyperactivity disorder, general memory, and IQ. Journal of Child Psy-

chology and Psychiatry, 40, 11971208.

Siegle, G. J., Carter, C. S., & Thase, M. E. (2006). Use of fMRI to predict recovery

from unipolar depression with cognitive behavior therapy. American Journal of

Psychiatry, 163, 735738.

Skowronski, J. J., Carlston, D. E., Mae, L., & Crawford, M. T. (1998). Sponta-

neous trait transference: Communicators take on the qualities they describe in

others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 837848.

Smith, C. A., Haynes, K. N., Lazarus, R. S., & Pope, L. K. (1993). In search of the

hot cognitions: Attributions, appraisals, and their relation to emotion. Jour-

nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 916929.

Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Emotion and adaptation. In L. A. Pervin

(Ed.),Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 609637). New York:

Guilford.

Smith, P., & Waterman, M. (2003). Processing bias for aggression words in fo-

rensic and nonforensic samples. Cognition and Emotion,17

, 681701.Smith, P., & Waterman, M. (2004). Role of experience in processing bias for ag-

gressive words in forensic and non-forensic populations. Aggressive Behavior,

30, 105122.

Smith, P., & Waterman, M. (2005). Sex differences in processing aggression words

using the emotional Stroop task. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 271282.

Smith, T. W., Glazer, K., Ruiz, J. M., & Gallo, L. C. (2004). Hostility,

anger, aggressiveness, and coronary heart disease: An interpersonal per-

spective on personality, emotion, and health. Journal of Personality, 72,

12171270.

Spielberger, C. D. (1988). Manual for the state trait anger expression inventory .Odessa, FL: PAR.

Stroop J R (1935) Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions Journal of



29/31

Sukhodolsky, D. G., Golub, A., & Cromwell, E. N. (2001). Development and

validation of the anger rumination scale. Personality and Individual Differ-

ences, 31, 689700.

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control pre-

dicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success.Journal of Personality, 72, 271324.

Tavris, C. (1984). On the wisdom of counting to ten: Personal and social

dangers of anger expression. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 5,

170191.

Thompson, L. Y., Snyder, C. R., Hoffman, L., Michael, S. T., Rasmussen, H. N.,

Billings, L. S., et al. (2005). Dispositional forgiveness of self, others, and sit-

uations. Journal of Personality, 73, 313359.

Toupin, J., De ry, M., Pauze , R., Mercier, H., & Fortin, L. (2000). Cognitive

and familial contributions to conduct disorder in children. Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 333344.Troop-Gordon, W., & Asher, S. R. (2005). Modifications in childrens goals

when encountering obstacles to conflict resolution. Child Development, 76,

115.

Uleman, J. S., Blader, S. L., & Todorov, A. (2005). Implicit impressions. In R. R.

Hassin, J. S. Uleman, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The new unconscious(pp. 362392).

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

van Honk, J., Tuiten, A., de Haan, E., van den Hout, M., & Stam, H. (2001).

Attention biases for angry faces: Relationships to trait anger and anxiety.

Cognition and Emotion, 15, 279297.

van Honk, J., Tuiten, A., van den Hout, M., Putman, P., de Haan, E., & Stam, H.

(2001). Selective attention to unmasked and masked threatening words: Rela-

tionships to trait anger and anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 30,

711720.

van Honk, H., & Schutter, D. J. L. G. (2006). From affective valence to moti-

vational direction: The frontal asymmetry of emotion revised. Psychological

Science, 17, 963965.

van Honk, J., & Schutter, D. J. L. G. (2007). Vigilant and avoidant responses to

angry facial expressions: Dominance and submission motives. In E. Harmon-

Jones & P. Winkielman (Eds.), Social neuroscience: Integrating biological andpsychological explanations of social behavior (pp. 197223). New York: Guil-

ford Press.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992a). Affects separable and inseparable: On the

hierarchical arrangement of the negative affects. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 62, 489505.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992b). On traits and temperament: General and

specific factors of emotional experience and their relation to the five-factor

model.Journal of Personality, 60, 441476.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York:

Springer-Verlag.Wilkowski, B. M., & Robinson, M. D. (2007). Keeping your cool: Trait anger,

hostile thoughts and the recruitment of limited capacity control Personality



30/31

Wilkowski, B. M., & Robinson, M. D. (2008a). The cognitive basis of trait anger

and reactive aggression: An integrative analysis. Personality and Social Psy-

chology Review, 12, 321.

Wilkowski, B. M., & Robinson, M. D. (2008b). Guarding against hostile

thoughts: Trait anger and the recruitment of cognitive control. Emotion, 8,578583.

Wilkowski, B. M., Robinson, M. D., Gordon, R. D., & Troop-Gordon, W.

(2007). Tracking the evil eye: Trait anger and selective attention within am-

biguously hostile scenes. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 650666.

Wilkowski, B. M., Robinson, M. D., & Meier, B. P. (2006). Agreeableness and the

prolonged spatial processing of antisocial and prosocial information. Journal

of Research in Personality, 40, 11521168.

Wilkowski, B. M., Robinson, M. D., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2008). Taming the

beast within: The cognitive control of anger and revenge motivation. Manuscript

submitted for publication.Williams, J. E., Paton, C. C., Siegler, I. C., Eidenbrodt, M. L., Nieto, F. J., &

Tyroler, H. A. (2000). Anger proneness predicts coronary heart disease risk:

Prospective analysis from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC)

study. Circulation, 1010, 20342039.

Williams, J. M. G., Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (1996). The emotional Stroop

task and psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 324.

Wingrove, J., & Bond, A. J. (2005). Correlation between trait hostility and faster

reading times for sentences describing angry reactions to ambiguous situations.

Cognition and Emotion, 19, 463472.

Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2007). A new look at habits and the habit-goal inter-

face. Psychological Review, 114, 843863.

Yovetich, N. A., & Rusbult, C. E. (1994). Accommodative behavior in close re-

lationships: Exploring transformation of motivation. Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, 30, 138164.

Zbrodoff, N. J., & Logan, G. D. (1986). On the autonomy of mental processes: A

case study of arithmetic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115,

118130.

Zelazo, P. D., & Cunningham, W. A. (2007). Executive function: Mechanisms

underlying emotion regulation. In J. J. Gross (Ed.),Handbook of emotion reg-ulation (pp. 135158). New York: Guilford Press.

Zelli, A., Cervone, D., & Huesmann, L. R. (1996). Behavioral experience and

social inference: Individual differences in aggressive experience and spontane-

ous versus deliberate trait inference. Social Cognition, 14, 165190.

Zelli, A., Huesmann, L. R., & Cervone, D. (1995). Social inference and individual

differences in aggression: Evidence for spontaneous judgments of hostility.

Aggressive Behavior, 21, 405417.

Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1976). Effect of timing of information about mit-

igating circumstances on emotional responses to provocation and retaliatory

behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 3855.Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language com-

prehension and memory Psychological Bulletin 123 162185



31/31

This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy.

Users should refer to the original published version of the material.

Documents

The Anatomy of ANGER - Cg Model and Reactive Agression