The University of Southern Mississippi The University of Southern Mississippi
The Aquila Digital Community The Aquila Digital Community
Dissertations
Summer 2018
Indirect & Displaced Aggression: The Role of Comparison Based Indirect & Displaced Aggression: The Role of Comparison Based
Traits and Cognitive Vulnerabilities Traits and Cognitive Vulnerabilities
Niki M. Knight
University of Southern Mississippi
Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations
Part of the Behavior and Behavior Mechanisms Commons, Clinical Psychology Commons, Counseling
Psychology Commons, Other Psychiatry and Psychology Commons, Personality and Social Contexts
Commons, and the Social Psychology Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Knight, Niki M., "Indirect & Displaced Aggression: The Role of Comparison Based Traits and Cognitive
Vulnerabilities" (2018).
Dissertations
. 1538.
https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/1538
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of The Aquila Digital Community. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
Indirect & Displaced Aggression: The Role of Comparison Based Traits
and Cognitive Vulnerabilities
by
Niki Knight
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate School,
the College of Education and Psychology
and the Department of Psychology
at The University of Southern Mississippi
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Approved by:
Dr. Eric Dahlen, Committee Chair
Dr. Bonnie Nicholson
Dr. Michael Madson
Dr. Ashley Batastini
____________________
____________________
____________________
Dr. Eric Dahlen
Committee Chair
Dr. Joe Olmi
Department Chair
Dr. Karen S. Coats
Dean of the Graduate School
August 2018
COPYRIGHT BY
Niki Knight
2018
Published by the Graduate School
ii
ABSTRACT
The present study explored the relationships of contingent self-esteem,
dispositional envy, and two cognitive vulnerabilities (i.e., anger rumination and fear of
negative evaluation) to indirect aggression (IA) and displaced aggression (DA) in a
college student sample (N = 346). Despite the theoretical relevance of these personality
and cognitive factors to aggression, there is little empirical evidence linking them to the
perpetration of IA and DA. Bivariate correlations and hierarchical multiple regression
were used to test the utility of these constructs in accounting for unique variance in IA
and DA and to assess the potential role of participant gender. Participants high in anger
rumination and dispositional envy reported more IA and DA. Further, anger rumination
and dispositional envy were positive predictors of IAS-A guilt induction, IAS-A social
exclusion, and DAQ behavioral displaced aggression. Fear of negative evaluation, anger
rumination, and dispositional envy were positive predictors for DAQ revenge planning
and IAS-A malicious humor. Despite mean gender differences on some variables, there
was no evidence that the predictors differed in their utility based on gender. Moreover,
contingent self-esteem did not emerge as a significant predictor of IA or DA despite its
theoretical relevance to these variables. The present findings suggest that anger
rumination, dispositional envy, and fear of negative evaluation may be useful in
understanding indirect and displaced aggression.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks goes to my committee chair, Dr. Eric Dahlen, and my other
committee members, Dr. Bonnie Nicholson, Dr. Ashley Batastini and Dr. Michael
Madson, for their advice and support throughout the duration of this project.
iv
DEDICATION
I would like to thank all of my friends and loved ones for their unwavering
support throughout my academic pursuits. I am also grateful for all of the empowering
women who have been role models, supervisors, professors, and mentors along the way.
In moments of uncertainty, your strength is my strength.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iii
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ v
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
Indirect and Displaced Aggression ................................................................................. 1
Comparison Based Personality Traits ............................................................................. 4
Contingent Self-Esteem .............................................................................................. 4
Dispositional Envy ...................................................................................................... 5
Cognitive Vulnerabilities ................................................................................................ 6
Anger Rumination ....................................................................................................... 6
Fear of Negative Evaluation ....................................................................................... 8
Aggression and Gender ................................................................................................... 9
The Present Study ......................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER II - METHOD ................................................................................................ 13
Participants .................................................................................................................... 13
Instruments .................................................................................................................... 13
Participant Demographic Questionnaire ................................................................... 14
vi
Dispositional Envy Scale (DES) ............................................................................... 14
Contingent Self-Esteem Scale (CSES) ..................................................................... 14
Displaced Aggression Questionnaire (DAQ)............................................................ 15
Indirect Aggression Scales – Aggression Version (IAS-A) ..................................... 15
Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale – Brief (FNEB) .................................................. 16
Anger Rumination Scale (ARS)................................................................................ 16
Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER III - RESULTS ............................................................................................... 18
Data Clean-Up and Preliminary Analyses .................................................................... 18
Primary Analyses .......................................................................................................... 21
Variable ............................................................................................................................. 22
Variable ............................................................................................................................. 23
Exploratory Analyses .................................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER IV - DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 32
Indirect Aggression ....................................................................................................... 33
Displaced Aggression ................................................................................................... 36
Limitations and Future Directions ................................................................................ 38
APPENDIX A Study Questionnaires ............................................................................... 43
Participant Demographic Questionnaire ................................................................... 43
Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (BFNE)..................................................... 43
vii
Dispositional Envy Scale (DES) ............................................................................... 44
Displaced Aggression Questionnaire (DAQ)) .......................................................... 45
Indirect Aggression Scale – Aggressor Version (IAS-A) ......................................... 47
Contingent Self-Esteem Scale (CSES) ..................................................................... 49
Anger Rumination Scale (ARS)................................................................................ 50
APPENDIX B – IRB Approval Letter .............................................................................. 52
APPENDIX C CONSENT FORM .................................................................................. 53
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 57
viii
LIST OF TABLES
.............................................................................................................................. 19
Scale Reliabilities, Means, Standard Deviations, and Gender Differences ...................... 19
Intercorrelations of Variables .............................................................................. 20
.............................................................................................................................. 22
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Dispositional Envy, Angry Rumination,
Contingent Self-Esteem, and Fear of Negative Evaluation Predicting Indirect Aggression
(N = 346) ........................................................................................................................... 22
.............................................................................................................................. 23
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Dispositional Envy, Angry Rumination,
Contingent Self-Esteem, and Fear of Negative Evaluation Predicting Displaced
Aggression (N = 346) ....................................................................................................... 23
.............................................................................................................................. 24
.............................................................................................................................. 25
Intercorrelations of Variables ........................................................................................... 25
.............................................................................................................................. 26
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Dispositional Envy, Angry Rumination,
Contingent Self-Esteem, and Fear of Negative Evaluation Predicting Indirect Aggression
– Aggressor Malicious Humor Subscale (N = 346) .......................................................... 26
Table 8 .............................................................................................................................. 27
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Dispositional Envy, Angry Rumination,
Contingent Self-Esteem, and Fear of Negative Evaluation Predicting Indirect Aggression
– Social Exclusion (N = 346) ............................................................................................ 27
ix
Table 9 .............................................................................................................................. 28
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Dispositional Envy, Angry Rumination,
Contingent Self-Esteem, and Fear of Negative Evaluation Predicting Indirect Aggression
– Guilt Induction (N = 346) .............................................................................................. 28
Table 10 ............................................................................................................................ 29
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Dispositional Envy, Angry Rumination,
Contingent Self-Esteem, and Fear of Negative Evaluation Predicting Displaced
Aggression – Revenge Planning (N = 346) ...................................................................... 29
Table 11 ............................................................................................................................ 30
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Dispositional Envy, Angry Rumination,
Contingent Self-Esteem, and Fear of Negative Evaluation Predicting Displaced
Aggression – Behavioral Displaced Aggression (N = 346) .............................................. 30
Table 12 ............................................................................................................................ 30
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Dispositional Envy, Angry Rumination,
Contingent Self-Esteem, and Fear of Negative Evaluation Predicting Displaced
Aggression – Angry Rumination (N = 346) ..................................................................... 30
1
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION
There is little doubt that aggression is a serious social problem, highlighting the
societal and scientific importance of gaining a better understanding of factors that may
contribute to aggressive behaviors (Foster & Jones, 2006; Glomb, 2002; Mercy, Krug,
Dahlberg & Zwi, 2003). Although overt aggression has received the most attention in the
literature (Fry & Gabriel, 1994; Paquette & Underwood, 1999) a growing body of
evidence indicates that more subtle and nuanced forms of aggression (e.g., relational,
indirect, and displaced aggression) can have an adverse impact on both victims and
perpetrators (Archer & Coyne, 2005; Coyne, Archer, & Eslea, 2006; Paquette &
Underwood, 1999). As a result, there has been increased interest in identifying predictors
of these forms of aggression in the hope that such information may ultimately aid in the
development of targeted intervention and prevention programs. The present study
explored the potential relationship of two comparison-based personality traits (i.e.,
contingent self-esteem and dispositional envy) and two cognitive vulnerabilities (i.e.,
anger rumination and fear of negative evaluation) to indirect and displaced aggression.
Indirect and Displaced Aggression
Indirect aggression (IA) involves the infliction of harm in a circuitous and non-
confrontational manner, such as malicious humor, social exclusion, gossiping, or trying
to convince others to dislike the victim (Archer & Coyne, 2005; Duncan & Owen-Smith,
2006; Osterman, 1994). IA may be more common than direct forms of aggression
because it is less likely to be considered acceptable (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Björkqvist,
Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992; Walker, Richardson & Green, 2000). IA has been
2
linked to low self-esteem, low emotional intelligence, and neuroticism (Loudin, Loukas,
& Robinson, 2003; Richardson & Green, 1999). It also appears to be related to
manipulation of others, lack of self-control, irritability, and anger (Richardson & Green,
1999).
Displaced aggression (DA) involves aggressive behaviors aimed at innocent
others rather than the original provocateur (Denson et al., 2006; Tedeschi & Norman,
1985). DA can serve as a way to preserve positive self-image (Hoobler & Brass, 2006)
and occurs when the aggressor is either unwilling or unable to retaliate against the
original source of provocation (Denson et al., 2006). Denson and colleagues (2006)
posited that there are personality-related factors in one’s tendency to engage or not
engage in DA and developed an instrument to measure trait DA. Unlike those who use
direct aggression, individuals high in trait DA are more behaviorally inhibited when
provoked (Denson, Pederson, & Miller, 2006), perhaps due to fear of negative evaluation
or a desire to avoid the negative consequences associated with aggressive behaviors. In
some ways, DA can be considered a form of IA; however, DA involves a wider range of
associated behaviors than IA, such as physical and verbal aggression (Denson, et al.,
2006).
Given their similarities, it is not surprising that scores on measures of IA and
direct aggression tend to be highly correlated. Still, there are some important differences
(Archer, 2010, Richardson & Green, 1999). For example, direct aggression is positively
related to measures of comfort in social situations (i.e., extraversion) while IA shows
inverse relationships to extraversion and positive relationships with to other personality
traits such as neuroticism (Archer, 2010). Thus, while it would be reasonable to expect
3
some theoretical overlap between IA and direct aggression, there is some evidence that
they have some distinct correlates.
Studies examining potential predictors of IA and DA are limited compared to
those focusing on overt or relational aggression; however, a number of good candidates
have emerged. Individuals who feel insecure about themselves, their social standing, and
their relationships may be less likely to utilize direct/overt forms of aggression, preferring
less direct methods that may have fewer consequences (Archer, 2010; Duncan & Owen-
Smith, 2006). There is some evidence that social comparison plays an important role in
IA. For example, acts of indirect peer aggression and romantic relational aggression were
more frequent among women who reported engaging in more appearance-based social
comparisons (Arnocky, Sunderani, Miller, & Vaillancourt, 2012). This suggests that
comparing oneself to others may facilitate IA. In addition, it has been suggested that IA
may serve to deflect potential criticism away from oneself and onto others (Archer,
2010). This suggests that anticipating criticism or negative evaluation from others in
social settings may facilitate IA. Archer and Coyne (2005) suggested that IA serves to
neutralize a potential rival by adversely affecting their social standing, either by removal
of the rival from the social group, or by reducing their social status within the social
group. Thus, IA may serve as a mechanism for envious individuals to “level down”
others and protect their own social status. Self-esteem may be relevant to DA, as there is
evidence that individuals low in self-esteem were more likely to displace their aggression
onto an innocent bystander following a frustration-inducing laboratory stimulus (Lange,
1971). In addition, Denson et al. (2006) suggested that those high in trait DA utilize
rumination as a primary means of coping with frustrations and other aversive life events,
4
and Denson et al. (2009) posited that anger rumination has an exhausting effect on self-
control mechanisms from which DA may emerge.
Comparison Based Personality Traits
Contingent Self-Esteem
Contingent self-esteem is a fragile form of self-esteem, involving a connection of
specific outcomes and self-worth evaluations, and is associated with an increased
tendency to defend/maintain positive yet fragile self-evaluative feelings (Kernis &
Paradise, 2002; Kernis, Lakey, & Heppner, 2008). Individuals with contingent self-
esteem are highly motivated to prove their self-worth to themselves and others by
satisfying their contingencies of self-worth (Crocker, Brooke, Niiya, & Villacorta, 2006).
The successes and failures that occur are often generalized by the individual to their
overall sense of self-worth (Crocker, Karpinski, Quinn, & Chase, 2003). Because one
cannot control one’s environment or every outcome, basing one’s self-worth on an
external domain generally leads to negative outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 1995; Kernis,
2003), Individuals with contingent self-esteem have reported higher levels of depression
(Crocker, 2002; Crocker & Park, 2004), being more sensitive towards negative feedback,
having lower levels of self-acceptance, and having fewer positive relationships (Kernis,
et al., 1993; Paradise & Kernis, 2002).
Deci and Ryan (1995) posited that contingent self-esteem facilitates a
preoccupation with the maintenance of positive self-regard, causing a higher level of ego
involvement in daily activities and interactions. Contingent self-esteem is coupled with a
motivation to validate and protect that fragile self-regard, and these individuals will go to
great lengths to avoid situations that may threaten their sense of self-worth (Deci & Ryan,
5
1995). Those with contingent self-esteem may respond to information that is potentially
threatening by becoming insensitive and aggressive towards others, such as insulting
others after having been criticized, blaming others for personal failures, and ignoring or
denying information that reflects badly on them (Deci & Ryan, 1995; Kernis, 2003).
Kernis and Paradise (2002) found that the more contingent one’s self-esteem, the higher
levels of anger and hostility one experiences after one’s ego is threatened. Moreover,
contingent self-esteem predicted vindictive tendencies for expressing anger in that
participants with higher levels of contingent self-esteem were more likely to direct their
anger inward rather than outward, and were also more likely to lash out at innocent
others. These findings by Kernis & Paradise (2002) suggest that contingent self-esteem is
associated with being easily angered, and with the expression of that anger in
unconstructive or harmful ways. Overall, contingent self-esteem has been linked to
vindictive tendencies, reactive aggression, higher levels of hostility and anger, and verbal
defensiveness (Kernis & Paradise, 2002; Kernis et al., 2008; Turner & White, 2015).
Given that individuals high in contingent self-esteem are more sensitive to ego-
threatening situations in everyday events and may behave aggressively in response
(Kernis & Paradise, 2002), it was predicted that persons with higher contingent self-
esteem would report utilizing more IA and/or DA.
Dispositional Envy
Although envy is an emotion that every individual experiences, some appear to be
more or less prone to feeling envious of others (Smith & Kim, 2007). Dispositional (or
trait) envy is conceptualized as a tendency to engage in upward social comparisons and
focus attention on desired successes, possessions, or traits, often resulting in a pervasive
6
sense of inferiority, negative emotions, and ill will towards envied individuals (Smith,
Parrott, Diener, Hoyle, & Kim, 1999; Veselka, Giammarco, & Vernon, 2014).
Dispositional envy appears to promote episodic (or state) envy, as evidenced by the
findings of Rentzsch and Gross (2015), in which participants with higher levels of
dispositional envy reported experiencing stronger levels of state envy. Neufeld and
Johnson (2015) posited that dispositional envy sparks episodic envy experiences via the
persistent attention given to the coveted good fortune or superior status of others. These
upward social comparisons or “diagnostic perspectives of the self” appear to facilitate
envious reactions (Tai et al., 2012; p. 108).
In a study by Rentzsch and Gross (2015), dispositional envy was related to trait
anxiety, depressive symptoms, negative self-perception, neuroticism, low self-esteem,
and hostile tendencies. The negative behaviors and emotional responses associated with
dispositional envy appear to serve as coping mechanisms; envious individuals are
motivated to reduce the pain of envy and protect their self-image (Schaubroeck, & Lam,
2004). Indirectly aggressive behaviors could serve as a way for the chronically envious
individual to “level down” others and protect their own social status, or as a way to cope
with chronic feelings of inferiority and ill will towards others.
Cognitive Vulnerabilities
Anger Rumination
Rumination refers to a tendency of self-focused attention involving repetitive
thoughts about negative past experiences and feelings (Nolen-Hoeksema, & Morrow,
1991; Ray, Wilhelm, & Gross, 2008). Anger rumination refers to the tendency to focus
on past experiences of anger in particular (Sukhodolsky, Golub, & Cromwell, 2001).
7
Rumination has predicted aggressive responses to insults and decreased ability to solve
interpersonal problems (Collins & Bell, 1997). Past research shows that rumination
intensifies anger and dysphoria (Konecni, 1974; Nolen-Hoeksema, 1996; Rusting &
Nolen-Hoeksema, 1998), and has been associated with higher levels of anxiety, depressed
mood, negative affect, trait anger, and anger directed inwards (Roberts, Gotlib, & Gilboa-
Schechtman, 1998; Sukhodolsky et al., 2001). Ruminating about a provocation increased
the likelihood of participants responding with triggered DA, as measured by giving a
negative evaluation following a mildly annoying event (i.e., fumbling research assistant)
approximately twenty-five minutes after the initial provocation (Bushman et al., 2005).
Anger rumination predicted physical aggression, verbal aggression, and hostility among
an undergraduate sample (Anestis, et al., 2009).
Rumination in general and anger rumination in particular have been linked to
triggered DA (e.g., Bushman et al., 2005), aggressive responses to perceived insults (e.g.,
Collins & Bell, 1997), higher levels of anger (e.g., Bushman, 2002) as well as higher
levels of hostility, verbal aggression and physical aggression (Anestis et al., 2009). Thus,
anger rumination appears to be an important variable when considering aggressive
behaviors. Surprisingly, no prior studies were found that directly assessed the association
between anger rumination and IA. Theoretically, the cognitive vulnerability of anger
rumination coupled with comparison-based personality traits could increase the
likelihood of one’s utilization of IA and DA behaviors. As previously mentioned, Denson
(2008) suggested that anger rumination has an exhausting effect on self-control
mechanisms, and aggressive behaviors are a potential result of this cognitive depletion.
8
Fear of Negative Evaluation
Fear of negative evaluation refers to persistent expectations of being evaluated
unfavorably, and distressing feelings of apprehension and dread regarding these negative
evaluations (Watson & Friend, 1969). Social anxiety includes a wide range of negative
affective reactions to social situations whereas fear of negative evaluation refers solely to
the persistent expectation and dread of being evaluated negatively by others (Weeks et
al., 2005). Social anxiety is posited to be an affective response to fear of negative
evaluation (Wells et al., 1995). These two constructs are distinct but closely related.
It has been suggested that the associations between social anxiety and aggressive
behaviors are due to a fear of negative evaluation from others. This leads to a
hypervigilance regarding hostility detection and a tendency to respond to these
misinterpretations with aggressive retaliatory behaviors (Crick, Grotpeter, & Bigbee,
2002; Lochman & Dodge, 1994; Loudin, Loukas, & Robinson, 2003). Those higher in
socially anxious traits appear to have a tendency to interpret neutral social interactions as
competitive (Rapee & Heimberg, 1997). IA has been positively correlated to anxiety
about one’s status in friendships (Duncan & Owen-Smith, 2006). These behaviors may
serve as a way for the socially anxious person to deflect expected rejection and criticism
by focusing negative attention towards others (Duncan & Owen-Smith, 2006; Watson
and Friend, 1969). Utilizing IA tactics (e.g., spreading rumors and giving “dirty looks”)
could serve as a way to utilize aggressive behaviors without direct confrontation,
minimizing the likelihood of being negatively evaluated or disapproved by others within
the peer group.
9
Anxiety and social anxiety predicted relational aggression and relational
victimization among emerging adults (Gros, Stauffacher-Gros, & Sims, 2010), and some
research suggests a more nuanced relationship regarding fear of negative evaluation and
aggression when taking gender into account. Among a late adolescent sample, fear of
negative evaluation was a significant predictor for dating aggression (i.e., including
physical and psychological aggressive behaviors) among young men but was not a
significant predictor for young women (Hanby et al., 2012). Social anxiety was positively
associated with romantic relational aggression among college women but college men
(Bagner, Storch, & Preston, 2007). Social evaluative anxiety was positively associated to
the use of social aggression among female and male adolescents and negatively
associated to the use of overt aggression among male participants (Loukas, Paulos, &
Robinson, 2005). Fear of negative evaluation predicted relational aggression among a
college student sample (Loudin et al., 2003), and anxiety about one’s status in friendships
predicted indirect aggression (Duncan & Owen-Smith, 2006). Despite theoretical
evidence, no studies were found directly linking fear of negative evaluation to DA or IA.
Aggression and Gender
Generally, it appears that men are more likely to engage in overt and/or direct
forms of aggression than women; however, gender differences in other forms of
aggression are less clear, especially when different age cohorts are examined (Bagner,
Storch, & Preston, 2007; Green, Richardson, & Lago, 1996; Loudin, Loukas, &
Robinson, 2003). Studies of adolescents and emerging adults have shown that some of
the gender differences noted among children may not persist across the lifespan (Linder,
Crick, & Collins, 2002). Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, and Peltonen, (1988) found that young
10
women utilize indirect aggressive tactics more often than young men and suggested that
social groups are “tighter” among young women, making IA a more common and
effective means. Archer (2004) noted that IA appears to be more common among teenage
girls than teenage boys but that this difference shrinks when adult participants are
examined. Among an adolescent sample, male youths reported engaging in more frequent
verbal and physical aggression for each age group assessed (i.e., 14-15 years, 16-17
years); however, there were no significant gender differences found for IA (Toldos,
2005).
Bailey and Ostrov (2008) observed gender differences among an undergraduate
sample, with men utilizing significantly more proactive and reactive physical aggression
than women. Bjorkqvist and colleagues (1994) found that men reported significantly
more “relational appearing” forms of IA (e.g., interrupting, directly criticizing,
questioning one’s sense of judgment) than women, and women reported engaging in
more “social manipulative” forms of IA (e.g, spreading of false rumors, backbiting
comments, insinuative negative glances). Several studies have shown that male
participants report engaging in more relational aggression and IA than female participants
(Moroschan, Hurd, & Nicoladis, 2009; Schmeelk & Sylvers, 2008; Storch et al., 2004),
with other studies indicating that female participants are more likely to engage in IA
(Hess & Hagen, 2006). Given mixed findings of aggression among adult samples, the
present study included gender in the analyses.
The Present Study
The present study explored the relationships of two comparison-based personality
traits (i.e., contingent self-esteem and dispositional envy) and two cognitive
11
vulnerabilities (i.e., anger rumination and fear of negative evaluation) to the perpetration
of IA and DA. Contingent self-esteem and dispositional envy were expected to contribute
to the tendency to engage in indirect and displaced aggressive behaviors, as both have
been associated with direct aggression and maladaptive anger expression (e.g., Deci &
Ryan, 1995; Kernis, 1993; Kernis, Lakey, & Heppner, 2008; Crocker & Park, 2004).
Various aspects of self-esteem appear to be relevant to a variety of aggressive behaviors,
but no prior studies were found assessing the relationship of contingent self-esteem to IA
or DA. Dispositional envy was deemed relevant, as it has been linked to higher levels of
resentment and hostile reactions. Further, dispositional envy has been linked to a
pervasive sense of inferiority and ill will towards the envied party (Smith et al., 1999;
Veselka et al., 2014). Thus, IA and DA could serve as a way for the chronically envious
individual to “level down” others and protect their own social status, or as a way to cope
with chronic feelings of inferiority.
The two cognitive vulnerability factors, fear of negative evaluation and anger
rumination, were also deemed potentially relevant. IA has been positively associated with
high levels of anxiety about one’s status in friendships (Duncan & Owen-Smith, 2006).
Fear of negative evaluation may inhibit one’s ability and/or willingness to directly
aggress, facilitating the utilization of IA and/or DA. Anger rumination has been linked to
higher levels of overt aggression, hostility, and triggered DA (Anestis et al., 2009;
Bushman et al., 2005; Sukhodolsky et al., 2001). Anger rumination, coupled with
comparison-based personality traits, may increase one’s utilization of aggression as a
result of cognitive depletion (Denson, 2006), or as a tactical method to “level down” an
envied party.
12
We predicted that contingent self-esteem, dispositional envy, anger rumination,
and fear of negative evaluation would account for unique variance in the perpetration of
IA and DA. We expected that each of these variables would be positively related to IA
and DA. Because we did not have a sufficient theoretical or empirical basis for predicting
gender differences or a specific type of moderation effect, respondent gender was
examined as a potential moderator of these predicted relationships on an exploratory
basis.
13
CHAPTER II - METHOD
Participants
A web-based research system (i.e., Sona Systems Ltd.) was utilized to recruit
participants from the University of Southern Mississippi. A power analysis calculated
with G*Power determined that at least 200 participants would be needed to detect
medium effect sizes, and so a target of at least 300 participants was set in order to ensure
a sufficient sample size after addressing potential data integrity issues. For the results to
be easily comparable to other studies using college student samples, the age range was
restricted to 18-25.
The present sample included 346 undergraduate student volunteers. The age range
was restricted to 18-25 years. Seventy-seven participants identified themselves as men
(22%), and 269 identified themselves as women (78%). The racial makeup of the sample
included 66% participants who identified themselves as White, 27% as Black, 4% as
Asian, 3% as Hispanic/Latino, and 1% as American Indian/Alaska Native. First-year
college students were somewhat over-represented, with 40% of the sample identifying
themselves as freshmen, 25% as sophomores, 18% as juniors, and 17% as seniors.
Instruments
The following instruments were administered online through Qualtrics. The
demographic questionnaire (see Appendix A) was presented first, and the order of the
remaining measures were randomized to minimize potential order effects.
14
Participant Demographic Questionnaire
A brief demographic questionnaire was administered at the beginning of the
survey to assess demographic information and to check if the participant qualified for the
study’s demographic requirements (i.e., ages 18-25).
Dispositional Envy Scale (DES)
The 8-item DES was developed by Smith et al., (1999) to assess dispositional
envy. The DES was recently described by Lange and Crusius (2015) as “the most widely
used measure of envy as a personality trait” (p. 285), who also noted that the DES
appears to assess malicious but not benign envy. Item content deals with feelings of envy,
inferiority, and resentment (e.g., “I feel envy every day;” “The bitter truth is that I
generally feel inferior to others.”) Respondents rate each item using a 5-point Likert scale
where response options range from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). The
DES has demonstrated high internal consistency in college student samples (αs = .83 -
.86) and impressive short-term temporal stability in the form of a 2-week test-retest
reliability coefficient of .80 (Smith et al. 1999). This measure has also shown evidence of
construct validity through correlations to other measures of envy, as well as other
theoretically similar constructs, such as vulnerable narcissism and high levels of
insecurity, neuroticism, hostility, and schadenfreude (i.e., feeling pleasure when others
fail; Krizan & Johar, 2012; Rentzsch, Schroder-Abe, & Schutz, 2015; Rentzsch & Gross,
2015; Smith et al., 1999).
Contingent Self-Esteem Scale (CSES)
The 15-item CSES was developed by Paradise and Kernis (1999) to measure
contingent self-esteem. Items assess self-esteem contingencies in areas such as
15
acceptance from others, performance, and living up to expectations. Items are rated on a
5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“not at all like me”) to 5 (“very much like me”), with
higher scores indicating stronger contingencies. This scale has displayed 4-week test-
retest reliability (r = .77), and adequate internal consistency (αs = .79-.85; Kernis, 2005;
Neff & Vonk, 2009; Patrick, Neighbors, & Knee, 2004; Neighbors, Larimer, Geisner, &
Knee, 2004). There is also evidence of construct validity (Kernis, 2003; Neff & Vonk,
2009; Neighbors et al., 2004).
Displaced Aggression Questionnaire (DAQ)
The 31-item DAQ was used to assess trait displaced aggression (i.e., “When
someone or something makes me angry I am likely to take it out on another person;” “If
someone made me angry I would likely vent my anger on another person”). Respondents
answer items on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = extremely uncharacteristic of me; 7 = extremely
characteristic of me). The DAQ is made up of three subscales, which measure a cognitive
dimension (revenge planning, 11 items), behavioral dimension (behavioral displaced
aggression, 10 items), and affective dimension (anger rumination, 10 items). The DAQ has
exhibited high levels of internal consistency (α = .91) and four-week test re-test reliability
(r = .77) as well as evidence of construct validity (Clingan et al., 2016; Denson, Pederson,
& Miller, 2006; Garcia-Sancho et al., 2016). The total score of the DAQ was used in the
present study.
Indirect Aggression Scales – Aggression Version (IAS-A)
The IAS-A is a 25-item self-report measure of the frequency with which
respondents have used various forms of indirectly aggressive behaviors during the last 12
months (Forrest, Eatough, & Shevlin, 2005). Items are presented on a 5-point Likert scale
16
ranging from 1 (“Never”) to 5 (“Regularly”). The 25 IAS-A items form three subscales:
social exclusion (10 items; αs = .78 - .82), malicious humor (9 items; αs = .84 - .86), and
guilt induction (6 items; αs = .79 - .81; Klem, 2008; Forrest et al., 2005). Potential scores
range from 25-125, with higher scores indicating higher levels of IA behaviors. The
overall IAS-A has shown good internal consistency among college student samples (
α
=
.94; Arnocky et al., 2012; Grimaldi, Napper, & LaBrie, 2014) as well as evidence of
construct validity (Moroschan, Hurd, & Nicoladis, 2009; Forrest et al., 2005). The overall
IAS-A score was utilized in the present study.
Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale – Brief (FNEB)
The 12-item FNEB is a brief self-report questionnaire that measures respondents’
desire for peer acceptance and fear of negative evaluation from others (i.e., “I am afraid
others will not approve of me”). Respondents rate how characteristic they consider each
statement to be of themselves on a 5-point Likert scale (1=not at all characteristic of me;
5=extremely characteristic of me). This measure has demonstrated good internal
consistency (αs = .90-.97), and excellent (r = .94) 2-week test-retest reliability (Collins,
Westra, Dozois, & Stewart, 2005; Duncan & Owen-Smith, 2006) as well as evidence of
construct validity (Collins et al., 2005; Weeks et al., 2008).
Anger Rumination Scale (ARS)
The 19-item ARS (e.g., Sukhodolsky et al., 2001) is a self-report questionnaire
that measures the tendency to focus attention on, recall, and ruminate on past angry
moods and anger experiences (e.g., “Whenever I experience anger, I keep thinking about
it for a while.”) Responses range on a 4-point Likert scale (1=almost never; 4=almost
always). This scale has shown high internal consistency (αs = .91 - .93), one-month test-
17
retest reliability of .77 (Anestis et al., 2009; Sukhodolsky, et al., 2001) and evidence of
construct validity (Anestis, et al., 2009; Sukhodolsky, et al., 2001).
Procedure
Approval for this study was obtained through the University of Southern
Mississippi Institutional Review Board - Human Subjects Protection Review Committee
(see Appendix B). The Department of Psychology’s web-based research system (i.e.,
Sona Systems Ltd.) was used to recruit potential participants from the departmental
subject pool. After reading a description of the study, potential participants signed up
through Sona, at which time they were given a URL directing them to the consent form
(see Appendix C) hosted through Qualtrics. After reviewing and electronically signing
the online consent form, participants were directed to a demographic questionnaire and
all study instruments. Consistent with published recommendations on the importance of
detecting careless responding in online survey research (e.g., Meade and Craig, 2012),
two directed response items were embedded in the survey questionnaires and formatted to
blend in with the measures in which they are embedded. Each instructed respondents to
answer in a particular way (e.g., “Answer ‘agree’ to this question.”). Participants who
failed to answer either item as instructed were flagged so their responses can be
eliminated from analyses. Consistent with departmental policies, participants who
completed the study without failing the quality assurance checks received 1 research
credit based on an expected 60-minute completion time.
18
CHAPTER III - RESULTS
Data Clean-Up and Preliminary Analyses
Data were downloaded from Qualtrics and converted into an SPSS file. Initially,
there were 558 cases in the data set. Eighty-four cases that contained nothing but missing
data were manually deleted and 102 were excluded due to failing one or both of the two
directed response items, which were designed to detect careless responding (N = 409).
Next, twenty-six participants were excluded for being outside the 18-25 age range (N =
346). Distributed among participants in the data set, there was 1 missing item response
for the IAS and 29 missing item responses for the DAQ. These missing responses were
replaced using the subscale averages. That is, each participant’s average item-level score
for the subscale on which each particular missing item fell was calculated, and the
missing data point was replaced with that value.
Means, standard deviations, and alpha coefficients for variables used in the
primary analyses are presented by respondent gender (see Table 1). Also reported are F-
statistics for one-way (gender) ANOVAs and effect sizes (i.e., Cohen’s d). Alpha
coefficients ranged from a low of .85 to a high of .96, indicating that the internal
consistency of all measures was more than sufficient for research purposes. Gender
differences were found for the IAS-A total score and BFNE total score, although the
unequal numbers of women and men in the present sample should be taken into
consideration when considering these differences. Men scored higher on indirect
aggressive behavior (IAS-A) than women. This is consistent with some previous research
showing that men scored higher on the IAS-A (Klem, 2008; Moroschan, Hurd, &
Nicoladis, 2009); however, other studies found no sex differences on the overall score of
19
IAS-A (Forrest, et al., 2005; Kusy, 2011). Women scored higher on fear of negative
evaluation traits (BFNE) than men, which is consistent with past research utilizing this
measure (Biolcati, 2017; Duke, Krishnan, Faith, & Storch, 2006; Shokri et al., 2008). The
effect sizes of both of these differences would be considered small (Valentine & Cooper,
2003).
Scale Reliabilities, Means, Standard Deviations, and Gender Differences
Men
Women
α
M
SD
M
SD
F(1,346)
d
0.91
16.12
7.78
17.29
7.66
1.41
-0.15
0.95
34.47
13.32
33.92
11.16
0.13
0.05
0.90
34.03
10.57
37.12
10.36
5.28
*
-.30
0.96
88.71
40.50
87.33
39.58
0.07
0.04
0.85
48.09
9.85
49.04
9.76
0.57
-0.98
0.95
40.51
16.60
36.20
12.76
5.91
*
0.31
Note. DES =Dispositional Envy Scale; ARS = Angry Rumination Scale; BFNE = Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale; DAQ
=Displaced Aggression Questionnaire; CSE = Contingent Self-Esteem Scale; IAS-A= Indirect Aggression Scale – Aggressor.
* p < .05
The two dependent variables (i.e., IAS-A and DAQ) were examined for
normality. The distribution of the IAS-A was positively skewed and was transformed
with an inverse and reflect transformation. Next, all continuous independent variables
used in the primary analyses were examined for normality. The DES total score exhibited
moderate positive skewness and was transformed using a logarithmic transformation. The
ARS total score exhibited slight positive skewness and was transformed using a square
20
root transformation. Unless otherwise noted, transformed scores were used for these
variables in subsequent analyses.
Intercorrelations among the variables were examined separately for women and
men; however, tests of the strength of independent correlations revealed fewer
differences than would be expected to occur by chance. Thus, correlations are reported
for the full sample (Table 2). Dispositional envy, fear of negative evaluation, anger
rumination, and contingent self-esteem were positively related to both indirect aggression
and displaced aggression, indicating that participants with higher scores on these
variables were more likely to report engaging in indirect or displaced aggressive
behaviors.
Intercorrelations of Variables
1
2
3
4
5
1. IAS
--
2. DAQ
.51
**
--
3. DES
.37
**
.57
**
--
4. BFNE
.13
*
.34
**
.55
**
--
5. ARS
.50
**
.78
**
.58
**
.39
**
--
6. CSE
.09
.32
**
.51
**
.74
**
.33
**
Note. IAS = Indirect Aggression Scale; DAQ = Displaced Aggression Scale; DES =Dispositional Envy
Scale; BFNE = Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation; ARS = Angry Rumination Scale; CSE = Contingent
Self-Esteem Scale.
*p < .01; **p < .05
21
Primary Analyses
A dummy gender variable was created (0 = women, 1 = men), and all predictor
variables were centered to facilitate interpretation and reduce multicollinearity. In order
to explore the utility of anger rumination, fear of negative evaluation, contingent self-
esteem, and dispositional envy in predicting indirect aggression (H1) and displaced
aggression (H2), two hierarchical multiple regressions were computed. First, total scores
of the IAS-A ware regressed on respondent gender, dispositional envy, anger rumination,
fear of negative evaluation, contingent self-esteem, and the following interactions terms:
dispositional envy x gender, anger rumination x gender, fear of negative evaluation x
gender, contingent self-esteem x gender. Respondent gender, dispositional envy, anger
rumination, fear of negative evaluation, and contingent self-esteem were entered in the
first step, and the interaction terms were entered in the second step (see Table 3).
The overall model was significant, explaining 29% of the variance and indicating
that ARS and DES were positive predictors of indirect aggression (i.e., higher scores on
these scales were associated with higher levels of indirect aggressive behaviors) while
taking respondent gender into account. Thus, H1 was partially supported. Anger
rumination and dispositional envy predicted indirect aggression. Contingent self-esteem
and fear of negative evaluation did not. The interaction terms tested on Step 2 were not
significant, suggesting that the predictive utility of these scales does not differ for men
and women.
22
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Dispositional Envy, Angry Rumination,
Contingent Self-Esteem, and Fear of Negative Evaluation Predicting Indirect Aggression
(N = 346)
Variable
B
95% CI
SE B
R
2
ΔR
2
Step 1
.29
.29
**
Gender
DES
-.00
.01
[-.00, -.00]
[.00, .01]
.00
.00
.14
**
.20
**
ARS
BFNE
CSE
Step 2
.00
-7.74
9.64
[.00, .01]
[.00, .00]
[.00, .00]
.00
.00
.00
.42
**
-.10
.00
.29
.00
DES x Gender
.00
[-.01, .01]
.01
-.01
ARS x Gender
BFNE x Gender
CSE x Gender
.00
9.54
4.03
[-.00, .00]
[.00, .00]
[.00, .00]
.00
.00
.00
-.05
.11
.00
Note. IAS = Indirect Aggression Scale; DES =Dispositional Envy Scale; BFNE = Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation; ARS = Angry
Rumination Scale; CSE = Contingent Self-Esteem Scale.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Second, total scores of the DAQ were regressed on respondent gender,
dispositional envy, anger rumination, fear of negative evaluation, contingent self-esteem,
and the following interactions terms: dispositional envy x gender, anger rumination x
gender, fear of negative evaluation x gender, contingent self-esteem x gender.
Respondent gender, dispositional envy, anger rumination, fear of negative evaluation, and
contingent self-esteem were entered in the first step, and the interaction terms were
entered in the second step (see Table 4).
23
The overall model was significant, explaining 63.4% of the variance and
indicating that two variables (i.e., ARS and DES) were positive predictors of displaced
aggression (i.e., higher scores on these scales were associated with higher levels of
displaced aggression) while taking respondent gender into account. Thus, H2 was
partially supported. Angry rumination and dispositional envy predicted displaced
aggression; contingent self-esteem and fear of negative evaluation did not. The
interaction terms tested on Step 2 were not significant, suggesting that the predictive
utility of these scales did not differ by respondent gender.
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Dispositional Envy, Angry Rumination,
Contingent Self-Esteem, and Fear of Negative Evaluation Predicting Displaced
Aggression (N = 346)
Variable
B
95% CI
SE B
R
2
ΔR
2
Step 1
Gender
DES
-1.36
38.38
[-7.60, 4.88]
[20.58, 56.19]
-.01
.19
**
-.01
-.06
.63
.63
*
ARS
BFNE
CSE
Step 2
28.56
-.23
.09
[25.28, 31.85]
[-.61, .16]
[-.31, .49]
1.67
.19
.20
.69
**
.19
**
.69
**
.64
.00
DES x Gender
-4.13
[-46.93, 38.68]
21.76
-.02
ARS x Gender
BFNE x Gender
CSE x Gender
.98
-.09
.34
[-6.40, 8.35]
[-.98, .80]
[-.61, 1.28]
3.75
.45
.48
.02
-.02
.07
Note. DAQ = Displaced Aggression Scale; DES =Dispositional Envy Scale; BFNE = Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation; ARS =
Angry Rumination Scale; CSE = Contingent Self-Esteem Scale.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
24
Exploratory Analyses
Exploratory analyses were conducted using the subscales of the IAS-A and DAQ
in order to assess potential differences among predictors within each type of aggression.
Scale Reliabilities, Means, Standard Deviations, and Gender Differences
Men
Women
Variable
α
M
SD
M
SD
F(1,345)
d
IAS-SE
0.91
18.23
8.29
16.89
6.33
2.32
.015
IAS-MH
0.88
15.88
7.19
13.06
4.88
16.00
**
0.04
IAS-GI
0.85
9.68
4.07
9.10
3.77
1.39
0.29
DAQ-RP
0.95
30.99
16.54
24.93
14.40
9.91
*
0.03
DAQ-BDA
0.93
23.16
12.06
28.03
14.34
7.38
*
0.09
DAQ-AR
0.95
34.58
18.47
34.38
16.42
0.01
0.06
Note. IAS-SE =IAS S; IAS-MH = IAS Malicious Humor subscale; IAS-GI = IAS Guilt Induction subscale; DAQ-RP = DAQ
Revenge Planning Subscale; DAQ-BDA = DAQ Behavioral Displaced Aggression Subscale; DAQ AR = DAQ Angry Rumination
Subscale.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Alpha coefficients, means, and standard deviations for all subscales used in the
exploratory analyses are presented in Table 5 by respondent gender. F-statistics for one-
way (gender) ANOVAs and effect sizes (i.e., Cohen’s d) are also reported. Alpha
coefficients ranged from a low of .85 to a high of .95, indicating that the internal
consistencies of all subscales were sufficient. Gender differences were found for the
following subscales: IAS-A malicious humor, DAQ revenge planning, and DAQ
behavioral displaced aggression. Men scored higher on IAS-A malicious humor and
25
DAQ revenge planning than women; women scored higher on DAQ behavioral displaced
aggression than men. The effect sizes of these differences were small (Valentine &
Cooper, 2003). Moreover, these gender differences should be considered tentatively due
to the unequal number of women and men in the present sample.
Intercorrelations of Variables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1. IAS-SE
--
2. IAS-MH
.76
**
--
3. IAS-GI
.80
**
.72
**
--
4. DAQ-RP
.55
**
.57
**
.45
**
--
5. DAQ-BDA
.37
**
.35
**
.40
**
.56
**
--
6. DAQ-AR
.33
**
.32
**
.25
**
.65
**
.65
**
--
7. DE
.37
**
.31
**
.35
**
.42
**
.55
**
.51
**
--
8. BFNE
.14
*
.05
.19
**
.09
.36
**
.43
**
.55
**
--
9. ARS
.48
**
.47
**
.42
**
.68
*
.55
**
.77
**
.58
**
.39
**
--
10. CSE
.09
.05
.15
**
.10
.32
**
.39
**
.52
**
.74
**
.33
**
Note. IAS = Indirect Aggression Scale; DAQ = Displaced Aggression Scale; DES =Dispositional Envy Scale; BFNE = Brief Fear of
Negative Evaluation; ARS = Angry Rumination Scale; CSE = Contingent Self-Esteem Scale.
*
p < .01.
**
p < .05
Correlations are reported for the full sample (see Table 6). Dispositional envy,
fear of negative evaluation, anger rumination, and contingent self-esteem were positively
related to all IAS and DAQ subscales, indicating that participants with higher scores on
26
these variables were more likely to report engaging in these various forms of indirect and
displaced aggressive behaviors.
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Dispositional Envy, Angry Rumination,
Contingent Self-Esteem, and Fear of Negative Evaluation Predicting Indirect Aggression
– Aggressor Malicious Humor Subscale (N = 346)
Variable
B
95% CI
SE B
R
2
ΔR
2
Step 1
.27
.27
**
Gender
DE
-.01
-.02
[-.02, .01]
[.01, .04]
.00
.01
-.20
.20
**
ARS
BFNE
CSE
Step 2
-.01
.00
5.20
[.01, .01]
[-.00, .00]
[.00, .00]
.00
.00
.00
.40
**
-.17
*
.00
.28
.01
DE x Gender
.01
[-.02, .05]
.02
.09
ARS x Gender
BFNE x Gender
CSE x Gender
-.00
.00
-7.40
[-.01, .00]
[-.00, .00]
[-.00, .00]
.00
.00
.00
-.09
.18
-.03
Note. IAS = Indirect Aggression Scale; DES =Dispositional Envy Scale; BFNE = Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation; ARS = Angry
Rumination Scale; CSE = Contingent Self-Esteem Scale.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
In order to explore the potential predictive utility of different types of indirectly
aggressive behaviors, three hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted (i.e., one
with each of the three IAS-A subscales). For each regression, the IAS-A subscale score
was regressed on respondent gender, dispositional envy, anger rumination, fear of
negative evaluation, contingent self-esteem, and the following interactions terms:
dispositional envy x gender, anger rumination x gender, fear of negative evaluation x
gender, contingent self-esteem x gender. Respondent gender, dispositional envy, anger
27
rumination, fear of negative evaluation, and contingent self-esteem were entered in the
first step, and the interaction terms were entered in the second step. The results for IAS-A
malicious humor (see Table 7), social exclusion, (see Table 8) and guilt induction (see
Table 9) were similar.
Table 8
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Dispositional Envy, Angry Rumination,
Contingent Self-Esteem, and Fear of Negative Evaluation Predicting Indirect Aggression
– Social Exclusion (N = 346)
Variable
B
95% CI
SE B
R
2
ΔR
2
Step 1
.25
.25
**
Gender
DE
-.00
-.02
[-.00, .01]
[-.03, -.00]
.00
.01
.07
-.18
**
ARS
BFNE
CSE
Step 2
-.01
.00
5.20
[-.01, -.01]
[.00, .00]
[.00, .00]
.00
.00
.00
-.42
**
.29
.68
.25
.00
DE x Gender
9.53
[-.03, .03]
.01
.01
ARS x Gender
BFNE x Gender
CSE x Gender
.00
9.39
5.83
[-.00, .01]
[-.00, .00]
[.00, .00]
.00
.00
.00
.18
-.34
.20
Note. IAS = Indirect Aggression Scale; DES =Dispositional Envy Scale; BFNE = Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation; ARS = Angry
Rumination Scale; CSE = Contingent Self-Esteem Scale.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
All regression models were significant, and the ARS and DES were positive
predictors of all three IAS-A subscales. BFNE emerged as another positive predictor of
malicious humor. In all three cases, the interaction terms tested on Step 2 were not
significant, indicating that the predictive utility of the predictor variables did not differ by
participant gender.
28
Table 9
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Dispositional Envy, Angry Rumination,
Contingent Self-Esteem, and Fear of Negative Evaluation Predicting Indirect Aggression
– Guilt Induction (N = 346)
Variable
B
95% CI
SE B
R
2
ΔR
2
Step 1
.18
.18
**
Gender
DE
-.01
.04
[-.02, .00]
[.02, .07]
.01
.01
-.09
.22
**
ARS
BFNE
CSE
Step 2
.01
6.43
-4.66
[.01, .01]
[.00, .00]
[-.00, .00]
.00
.00
.00
.24
**
.02
-.01
.18
.00
DE x Gender
-.02
[-.03, .03]
-.11
.11
ARS x Gender
BFNE x Gender
CSE x Gender
.00
5.06
.00
[-.01, .00]
[.00, .00]
[-.00, .00]
.02
.00
.09
.02
.01
.56
Note. IAS = Indirect Aggression Scale; DES =Dispositional Envy Scale; BFNE = Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation; ARS = Angry
Rumination Scale; CSE = Contingent Self-Esteem Scale.
In order to explore the potential predictive utility of different types of displaced
aggressive behaviors, three hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted (i.e., one
with each of the three DAQ subscales). In each regression, the DAQ subscale was
regressed on respondent gender, dispositional envy, anger rumination, fear of negative
evaluation, contingent self-esteem, and the following interactions terms: dispositional
envy x gender, anger rumination x gender, fear of negative evaluation x gender,
contingent self-esteem x gender. Respondent gender, dispositional envy, anger
rumination, fear of negative evaluation, and contingent self-esteem were entered in the
first step, and the interaction terms were entered in the second step.
29
Table 10
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Dispositional Envy, Angry Rumination,
Contingent Self-Esteem, and Fear of Negative Evaluation Predicting Displaced
Aggression – Revenge Planning (N = 346)
Variable
B
95% CI
SE B
R
2
ΔR
2
Step 1
.51
.51
**
Gender
DE
-.50
1.44
[-.75, .23]
[.70, 2.17]
.13
.38
-.14
.20
**
ARS
BFNE
CSE
Step 2
.96
-.03
-.01
[.82, 1.01]
[-.05, -.01]
[-.02, .01]
.07
.01
.01
.65
**
-.23
**
-.05
.51
.00
DE x Gender
-.33
[-2.09, 1.44]
.90
-.37
ARS x Gender
BFNE x Gender
CSE x Gender
-.05
.01
-.01
[-.35, .26]
[-.03, .05]
[-.04, .03]
.16
.02
.02
-.30
.48
-.04
Note. IAS = Indirect Aggression Scale; DES =Dispositional Envy Scale; BFNE = Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation; ARS = Angry
Rumination Scale; CSE = Contingent Self-Esteem Scale.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
The results for DAQ revenge planning (see Table 10), behavioral displaced
aggression (see Table 11) and angry rumination (see Table 12) were similar; however,
there was more variability with these subscales than was the case with the IAS-A. Scores
on the BFNE, ARS, and DES were positive predictors of revenge planning. Scores on the
ARS and DES but not BFNE were positive predictors of behavioral displaced aggression.
Finally, the ARS was the only variable to predict angry rumination. In each regression,
the interaction terms tested on Step 2 were not significant, indicating that these
relationships did not differ by participant gender.
30
Table 11
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Dispositional Envy, Angry Rumination,
Contingent Self-Esteem, and Fear of Negative Evaluation Predicting Displaced
Aggression – Behavioral Displaced Aggression (N = 346)
Variable
B
95% CI
SE B
R
2
ΔR
2
Step 1
.42
.42
**
Gender
DE
.39
2.17
[.12, .66]
[1.40, 2.93]
.14
.39
.12
.32
**
ARS
BFNE
CSE
Step 2
.53
.00
.00
[.39, .67]
[-.02, .02]
[-.01, .02]
.07
.01
.01
.32
**
.38
**
.00
.03
.43
.01
DE x Gender
-.89
[-2.69, .92]
.92
-.12
ARS x Gender
BFNE x Gender
CSE x Gender
.39
-.03
.03
[.07, .69]
[-.05, .01]
[-.01, .07]
.16
.02
.02
.23
-.18
.19
Note. IAS = Indirect Aggression Scale; DES =Dispositional Envy Scale; BFNE = Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation; ARS = Angry
Rumination Scale; CSE = Contingent Self-Esteem Scale.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
Table 12
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Summary for Dispositional Envy, Angry Rumination,
Contingent Self-Esteem, and Fear of Negative Evaluation Predicting Displaced
Aggression – Angry Rumination (N = 346)
Variable
B
95% CI
SE B
R
2
ΔR
2
Step 1
.63
.63
**
Gender
DE
-.43
1.34
[-3.11, 2.25]
[-6.31, 8.99]
1.36
3.89
-.01
.02
ARS
BFNE
CSE
Step 2
12.54
.11
.15
[11.13, 13.95]
[-.06, .28]
[-.03, .32]
.72
.08
.09
.71
**
.07
.08
.63
.00
31
02 (continued).
DE x Gender
7.79
[-10.59,26.16]
9.34
.08
ARS x Gender
BFNE x Gender
CSE x Gender
-1.23
-.07
.09
[-4.39, 1.94]
[-.45, .31]
[-.31, .49]
1.61
.19
.21
.06
-.04
.05
Note. IAS = Indirect Aggression Scale; DES =Dispositional Envy Scale; BFNE = Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation; ARS = Angry
Rumination Scale; CSE = Contingent Self-Esteem Scale.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
32
CHAPTER IV - DISCUSSION
The present study extended the literature on indirect forms of aggression by
examining the degree to which comparison-based personality factors (i.e., contingent
self-esteem and dispositional envy) and cognitive vulnerability traits (i.e., fear of negative
evaluation and anger rumination) predicted the tendency to engage in indirect and
displaced aggressive behaviors among college students. As expected, anger rumination
and dispositional envy were positive predictors for both IA and DA while taking
respondent gender into account. Participants who were higher in anger rumination and
dispositional envy reported engaging in more frequent indirect and displaced aggression.
Further, anger rumination and dispositional envy explained unique variance for all three
subscales of the IAS-A (i.e., social exclusion, guilt induction, and malicious humor) and
two of the DAQ subscales (i.e., behavioral displaced aggression, and revenge planning).
Essentially, anger rumination and dispositional envy explained a significant amount of
variance in these particular forms of indirect and displaced aggression while accounting
for all other variables that are included in the regression model. This is consistent with
the possibility that indirect and displaced aggression may serve as maladaptive coping
techniques for individuals who frequently feel envious of others and have a tendency to
ruminate over angry experiences. Dispositional envy did not explain unique variance in
DAQ Angry Rumination.
Contrary to what was expected, contingent self-esteem did not explain unique
variance in indirect or displaced aggression. Further, contingent self-esteem was
unrelated to IA even when examining bivariate correlations. Although contingent self-
esteem was related to displaced aggression when examining bivariate relationships, the
33
relationship was much weaker than either dispositional envy or anger rumination.
Similarly, fear of negative evaluation showed a stronger bivariate relationship to DA than
to IA; however, this relationship was not enough to make a contribution along with the
other variables in the regressions. Fear of negative evaluation did not explain unique
variance in indirect or displaced aggression total scores; however, fear of negative
evaluation did account for unique variance in DAQ revenge planning and IAS-A
malicious humor. This suggests a more nuanced relationship between specific behaviors
associated with these forms of aggression and fear of negative evaluation, and that
exploring specific behaviors associated with IA and DA could provide better insight into
contributing factors.
Past research has supported the relevance of considering potential gender
differences when studying aggressive behavior. Thus, gender was explored as a potential
moderator in the present study. Contrary to past research findings of gender differences in
aggressive behaviors (Archer, 2004; Bagner, et al., 2007; Basow, Cahill, Phelan,
Longshore, & McGillicuddy-DeLisa, 2007; Card, Stuck, Sawalani, & Little, 2008; Eagly
& Steffen, 1986; Green, Richardson, & Lago, 1996), no gender differences were found in
this sample. Overall, the relationships between variables in the present study did not
function differently when taking gender into account.
Indirect Aggression
The finding that dispositional envy explained unique variance in indirect
aggression was consistent with Archer and Coyne’s (2005) intriguing suggestion that IA
may serve to neutralize a potential rival by adversely affecting their social standing,
either by removal of the rival from the social group or by reducing their social status
34
within the social group. Regardless of gender, participants who were prone to experience
feelings of envy reported engaging in indirect aggression more frequently. While it is not
possible to infer a causal relationship here, these findings are consistent with the
possibility that envy may facilitate IA. Such a possibility would fit well with the notion
that a function of dispositional envy involves being motivated to protect one’s self-image
and “level down” the comparison target (Vidaillet, 2007). Anger rumination also
accounted for unique variance in indirect aggression, which was not surprising since it
has been associated with various types of aggression in previous studies, such as reactive
aggression, physical aggression, and verbal aggression (Anestis et al., 2009; Bushman et
al., 2005, White & Turner, 2015). Given that no previous studies were located that
directly examined the association between anger rumination and IA, the present findings
help to address a gap in the literature by demonstrating the potential relevance of anger
rumination to indirect aggression.
Contrary to what was predicted, fear of negative evaluation and contingent self-
esteem did not account for unique variance in indirect aggression when total IAS-A
scores were examined. It is unlikely that a restricted range of scores on these measures
was a factor, as their means and standard deviations were comparable to those reported in
other studies utilizing the CSE to measure contingent self-esteem (Paradise & Kernis,
2002; Kernis et al., 2008; Turner & White, 2015) and the BFNE to measure fear of
negative evaluation (Dogaheh, Mohammadkhani & Dolatshani, 2011; Hossein et al.,
2009; Rodenbaugh et al., 2004). Contingent self-esteem involves a higher ego
involvement in everyday activities (Deci & Ryan 1995) and is associated with being
easily angered after experiencing an ego threat (Kernis & Paradise, 2002). Essentially,
35
those with contingent self-esteem may respond to threatening information by becoming
aggressive, and past research has linked this fragile form of self esteem to higher levels of
hostility and various aggressive behaviors, such as vindictive tendencies, verbal
defensiveness, reactive aggression, insulting others, and blaming others (Deci & Ryan
1995; Kernis, 2003; Kernis et al., 2008; Kernis & Paradise 2002). The lack of significant
findings in the present study could reflect measurement error or the need for a different
research design. For example, an experimental research design in which variables are
manipulated to give opportunities for participants to experience threats to their self-
esteem, and then observed in situations designed to elicit indirect aggression as a
response to these ego threats. Bushman & Baumeister (1998), found no relationship
between self-esteem level and narcissism to laboratory triggered displaced aggression, so
perhaps self-esteem is not as relevant a factor when considering displaced aggression.
Future studies may find it beneficial to utilize longitudinal designs and/or to assess other
aspects of self-esteem (e.g., stability) in order to fully explore the potential for self-
esteem fragility to play a role in facilitating indirect and displaced aggressive behaviors.
It is worth noting that fear of negative evaluation was a significant predictor of
scores on the IAS-A malicious humor subscale, suggesting that it is likely relevant to
some aspects of IA. That it helped to account for malicious humor but not total IAS-A
scores or scores on the other two IAS-A subscales (i.e., social exclusion and guilt
induction) suggests that its role in indirect aggression may be fairly limited. Fear of
negative evaluation has previously been linked to hostile interpersonal functioning and
aggressive behaviors, as the socially anxious person has a tendency to predict that social
interactions will be competitive or threatening (Rapee & Heimberg, 1997). The present
36
findings suggest that individuals who fear negative evaluation in social settings may be
more likely to utilize malicious humor, perhaps as a way to deflect negative attention
onto others and away from themselves. Malicious humor (i.e., imitating the victim in
front of others, using sarcasm to insult) could be a more effective and immediate avenue
to do this than guilt induction (i.e., trying to influence the victim by making them feel
guilty, using the victims feelings to coerce them) or social exclusion (i.e., purposefully
leaving the victim out of activities, excluding the victim from a group). This is consistent
with the theory that those who fear negative evaluation may use IA as a way to deflect
negative attention away from themselves onto others.
Displaced Aggression
Displaced aggression involves harm-doing behaviors aimed at innocent others
rather than the original provocateur (Denson et al., 2006). Similar to what was found for
indirect aggression, dispositional envy and anger rumination accounted for unique
variance in displaced aggression while taking gender into account. While the present
design does not permit drawing causal inferences, the present findings were consistent
with the possibility that displaced aggression may be an outcome for individuals who
regularly engage in upward social comparisons and ruminate over angry feelings.
Exploratory analyses focusing on the subscales of the DAQ found that anger rumination
and dispositional envy accounted for unique variance in all three DAQ subscales. This
suggests that the relevance of these variables extends to the behavioral, affective, and
cognitive dimensions of DA. This adds to previous research linking anger rumination to
higher levels of overt aggression, hostility, and triggered displaced aggression (Anestis et
al., 2009; Bushman et al., 2005; Sukhodolsky et al., 2001). The tendency to engage in
37
upward social comparisons and experience the associated feelings of inferiority and “ill
will” towards the envied party (Gold, 1996; Smith et al., 1999; Veselka et al., 2014)
coupled with the cognitive tendency to ruminate or “brood” over these experiences
appears to influence the engagement of DA. These aggressive behaviors could serve as a
way to cope with the chronic feelings of inferiority that are associated with dispositional
envy and the cognitive depletion that can occur when one has a tendency to engage in
anger rumination (Denson, 2006). In sum, anger rumination coupled with the
comparison-based personality trait of dispositional envy appears to increase one’s
utilization of displaced aggression. This may serve as a displaced expression of
frustration and ill will towards an original source of provocation, the envied party.
Despite theoretical support for its inclusion, fear of negative evaluation did not
account for unique variance in displaced aggression when the total score was used. On
the other hand, fear of negative evaluation did contribute to the DAQ revenge planning
subscale. This suggests that fear of negative evaluation may be most relevant when
considering the cognitive dimension of displaced aggression, or the tendency to hold
grudges and plan for retaliation. Research has shown that those who are high in fear of
negative evaluation tend to interpret neutral social interactions as threatening or
competitive (Crick, Grotpeter, & Bigbee, 2002; Lochman & Dodge, 1994; Rapee &
Heimberg, 1997). Perhaps this sensitivity towards perceived social slights facilitates the
engagement in revenge planning as a cognitive coping technique. The behavioral aspect
of aggression associated with fear of negative evaluation appears to be better explained
by the malicious aggression dimension in indirect aggression, rather than being displaced
later onto an innocent other.
38
Overall, these findings provide support for considering the underpinnings of
aggressive behaviors when exploring contributing factors. Contingent self-esteem did not
emerge as a significant predictor for displaced aggression, despite theoretical support in
relevant literature. As noted above, this could reflect measurement error or the need for a
different research design. Future directions could involve the manipulation of variables in
a research study or the use of different instruments to potentially better capture these
constructs within the scope of the research questions.
Limitations and Future Directions
Limitations of the present study include the reliance on self-report measures, the
possible influence of careless responding on data integrity, the overrepresentation of
women in the sample, the use of a convenience sample from a single university, and the
correlational design. The most important limitation is likely the correlational design, as it
prevents us from drawing causal inferences about the variables. As tempting as it might
be to infer that envy and anger rumination lead to indirect or displaced aggression, the
lack of an experimental design prevents us from ruling out the possibility that unspecified
variables could be involved or to infer causation from correlation. Future research could
incorporate longitudinal designs, daily diary methodology where participants provide
data on regular intervals, or experimental research designs in which variables are
manipulated and observed. Aggression is a socially undesirable behavior, and the self-
report measures utilized in the present study were susceptible to the possibility of socially
desirable responding. The use of an anonymous online survey likely helped; however, it
may be helpful to future studies to assess socially desirable responding or to supplement
self-report data with informant ratings where possible. Although recommended
39
procedures (e.g., Meade & Craig, 2012) were utilized to identify participants who
responded carelessly to the questionnaires and exclude their data, it was clear that a
significant number of participants who completed the study (roughly 102) responded
carelessly enough to be eliminated. This highlights the possibility that some participants
who carelessly responded could have been retained in the data set, which could
negatively impact the validity of the findings. The present sample was predominately
female (78%). This is not representative of college students and could have negatively
impacted our ability to detect small gender differences in mean scores or in the
relationships among variables of interest. Additionally, the sample was drawn from a
single mid-sized public university in the Southeastern United States, which further
reduces the generalizability of findings to a broader college student population. It may be
beneficial for future studies involving these constructs to compare the present findings
with those from more diverse samples.
Overall, the findings that dispositional envy and anger rumination were positively
related to both indirect and displaced aggression suggest that future research on IA and
DA may benefit from their inclusion. Although additional work with more diverse
samples is likely to be useful, the present results suggest that gender may not be relevant
when considering these relationships among emerging adults. It also appears that
dispositional envy may be less relevant when considering the affective dimension of
displaced aggression (i.e., anger rumination) despite being related to the other two
subscales of the DAQ (i.e., behavioral displaced aggression, revenge planning). Future
studies could expand on various types of similar interpersonally aggressive behaviors,
such as relational aggression. Further, there could be personality-related factors in one’s
40
dispositional tendency to experience envy to be explored based off the present findings.
For example, DAQ revenge planning has been negatively associated with agreeableness
and conscientiousness.
Fear of negative evaluation did not emerge as a significant factor when
considering IAS-A and DAQ total scores; however, this trait was related to IAS-A
malicious humor and DAQ revenge planning. Perhaps studies focused on forms of
aggression that consist primarily of malicious behaviors (i.e., playing practical jokes, use
of sarcasm, calling names and criticizing in public) as well as the tendency to hold
grudges and plan for retaliation could provide more insight into the relationship between
aggressive behaviors and fear of negative evaluation. Fear of negative evaluation is a
cognitive vulnerability, and it is interesting that it was significantly correlated with the
cognitive dimension of displaced aggression. Perhaps future studies could explore the
types of thoughts associated with the cognitive dimension of displaced aggression as a
maladaptive coping technique for those who experience fear of negative evaluation.
Denson et al. (2006) found DAQ revenge planning to be positively correlated to trait
hostility, norm of negative reciprocity, and direct physical aggression while negatively
correlated to agreeableness, conscientiousness, anger control, and social desirability.
Future studies may benefit from exploring fear of negative evaluation and these particular
correlates to the DAQ revenge planning subscale.
More insight into factors that facilitate and maintain aggressive behaviors could
inform the development of prevention programs (e.g., anti-bullying initiatives,
educational based programs) as well as intervention strategies in clinical settings.
Specifically, the present findings have the potential to reduce interpersonal dysfunction in
41
the form of indirect and/or displaced aggression. Cognitive-behavioral strategies focused
on reducing dispositional envy, fear of negative evaluation, and anger rumination or
changing behavioral responses to these intrapersonal experiences may be beneficial in
reducing the use of aggressive behaviors. For example, cognitive restructuring as a means
of reducing the impact of dispositional envy could potentially improve ones interpersonal
functioning. Envy usually involves an upward social comparison that occurs when a
person lacks an achievement, personal quality, or possession of another and desires this
factor for themselves (Salovey & Roden, 1984). Such upward social comparisons can be
interpreted as inspiring and motivating or these comparisons can elicit feelings of
inferiority and self-dissatisfaction. Thus, cognitive restructuring geared at interpreting
upward social comparisons as inspirational or motivating could reduce the associated
aggressive responses and lead to more positive outcomes. Findings also suggest that
gaining a clear picture of what DA/IA dimension is being expressed could further tailor
interventions. For example, displaced aggressive behaviors that center primarily around
the cognitive dimension of DA could suggest that assessing for and treating fear of
negative evaluation is relevant. In such cases, interventions focused on cognitive
restructuring regarding the tendency to interpret neutral social interactions as threatening
and competitive could be an effective approach to the treatment of displaced aggression.
The present study provided support for the utility of personality-related factors
and cognitive vulnerability factors in understanding indirect and displaced aggression
among emerging adults. Specifically, anger rumination and dispositional envy accounted
for unique variance in indirect and displaced aggression while taking respondent gender
into account. On the other hand, contingent self-esteem did not contribute to
42
understanding indirect or displaced aggression. Support for fear of negative evaluation
was more nuanced in that it was associated with the revenge planning dimension of
displaced aggression and the malicious humor dimension of indirect aggression. These
relationships did not vary by respondent gender.
43
APPENDIX A Study Questionnaires
Participant Demographic Questionnaire
The following questions will be used to gather information about participants in this
study. Please answer the questions accordingly.
Gender: ____ Male ____ Female ____ Other
Age: _____
Race/Ethnicity:
____ African American/Black
____Caucasian/White
____Hispanic/Latino
____Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
____American Indian/Alaska Native
____Asian
____Other (specify)
College Status:
____Freshman
____Sophomore
____Junior
___ Senior
Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (BFNE)
Read each of the following statements carefully and indicate how characteristic it is of
you according to the following scale:
1 = not at all characteristic of me
44
2 = slightly characteristic of me
3 = moderately characteristic of me
4 = very characteristic of me
5 = extremely characteristic of me
1. I worry about what other people will think of me even when I know it doesn’t
make any difference.
2. I am unconcerned even if I know people are forming an unfavorable impression
of me.
3. I am frequently afraid of other people noticing my shortcomings.
4. I rarely worry about what kind of impression I am making on someone.
5. I am afraid others will not approve of me.
6. I am afraid that people will find fault with me.
7. Other people’s opinions of me do not bother me.
8. When I am talking to someone I worry about what they may be thinking about
me.
9. I am usually worried about what kind of impression I make.
10. If I know someone is judging me, it has little effect on me.
11. Sometimes I think I am too concerned with what other people think of me.
12. I often worry that I will say or do the wrong things.
Dispositional Envy Scale (DES)
1 = strongly disagree
2 = moderately disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
45
4 = moderately agree
5 = strongly agree
1. I feel envy every day.
2. The bitter truth is that I generally feel inferior to others.
3. Feelings of envy constantly torment me.
4. It is so frustrating to see some people succeed so easily.
5. No matter what I do, envy always plagues me.
6. I am troubled by feelings of inadequacy.
7. It somehow doesn’t seem fair that some people seem to have all the talent.
8. Frankly, the success of my neighbors makes me resent them.
Displaced Aggression Questionnaire (DAQ))
1 = Extremely like me
2 = Moderately unlike me
3 = Slightly unlike me
4 = Neither like or unlike me
5 = Slightly like me
6 = Moderately like me
7 = Extremely like me
1. When somebody offends me, sooner or later I retaliate.
2. Sometimes I can’t help thinking about times when someone made me mad.
3. When things don’t go the way I plan, I take out my frustration on the first person I
see.
46
4. I think about ways of getting back at people who have made me angry long after
the event has happened.
5. When feeling bad, I take it out on others.
6. After an argument is over, I keep fighting with this person in my imagination.
7. I never help those who do me wrong.
8. If a person hurts you on purpose, you deserve to get whatever revenge you can.
9. I often find myself thinking over and over about things that have made me angry.
10. When angry, I have taken it out on people close to me.
11. The more time that passes, the more satisfaction I get from revenge.
12. Sometimes I get upset with a friend or family member even though that person is
not the cause of my anger or frustration.
13. I feel angry about certain things in life.
14. If somebody harms me, I am not at peace until I can retaliate.
15. When angry, I tend to focus on my thoughts and feelings for a long period of
time.
16. When someone or something makes me angry, I am likely to take it out on
another person.
17. I have long living fantasies of revenge after the conflict is over.
18. Sometimes I get so upset by work or school that I become hostile toward family
or friends.
19. I get “worked up” just thinking about things that have upset me in the past.
20. If another person hurts you, it’s all right to get back at him or her.
21. Whenever I experience anger, I keep thinking about it for a while.
47
22. When I am angry, I don’t care who I last out at.
23. I would get frustrated if I could not think of a way to get even with someone who
deserves it.
24. I think about certain events from a long time ago and they still make me angry.
25. If I have had a hard day at work or school, I’m likely to make sure everyone
knows about it.
26. I often daydream about situations where I’m getting back at my own people.
27. I take my anger out on innocent others.
28. I re-enact the anger episode in my mind after it has happened.
29. When someone makes me angry, I can’t stop thinking about how to get back at
this person.
30. If someone made me angry, I would likely vent my anger on another person.
31. I keep thinking about events that angered me for a long time.
Indirect Aggression Scale – Aggressor Version (IAS-A)
Think about the past 12 months with your friends, peers, and co-workers. On a scale of 1-
5, rate how often you think you have done the actions stated below.
1 = Never
2 = Once/Twice
3 = Sometimes
4 = Often
5 = Regularly
1. Used my relationship with them to try and get them to change a decision.
2. Used sarcasm to insult them.
48
3. Tried to influence them by making them feel guilty.
4. Withheld information from them that the rest of the group is let in on.
5. Purposefully left them out of activities.
6. Made other people not talk to them.
7. Excluded them from a group.
8. Used their feelings to coerce them.
9. Made negative comments about their physical appearance.
10. Used private in-jokes to exclude them.
11. Used emotional blackmail on them.
12. Imitated them in front of others.
13. Spread rumors about them.
14. Played a nasty practical joke about them.
15. Done something to try and make them look stupid.
16. Pretended to be hurt and/or angry with them to make them feel bad about
him/herself
17. Made them feel that they don’t fit in.
18. Intentionally embarrassed them around others.
19. Stopped talking to them.
20. Put undue pressure on them.
21. Omitted them from conversations on purpose.
22. Made fun of them in public.
23. Called them names.
24. Criticized them in public.
49
25. Turned other people against them.
Contingent Self-Esteem Scale (CSES)
1 = strongly disagree
2 = moderately disagree
3 = neither agree nor disagree
4 = moderately agree
5 = strongly agree
1. An important measure of my worth is how competently I perform.
2. Even in the face of failure, my feelings of self-worth remain unaffected.
3. A big determinant of how much I like myself is how well I perform up to the
standards I have set for myself.
4. My overall feelings about myself are heavily influenced by how much other
people like me.
5. If I get along well with somebody, I feel better about myself overall.
6. An important measure of my worth is how physically attractive I am.
7. My overall feelings about myself are heavily influenced by what I believe other
people are saying about me.
8. If I am told I look good, I feel better about myself in general.
9. My feelings of self-worth are basically unaffected when other people treat me
badly.
10. An important measure of my worth is how well I perform up to the standards that
other people have set for me.
11. If I know that someone likes me, I do not let it affect how I feel about myself.
50
12. When my actions do not live up to my expectations, it makes me feel dissastified
with myself.
13. Even on a day when I don’t look my best, my feelings of self-worth remain
unaffected.
14. My overall feelings about myself are heavily influenced by how good I look.
15. Even in the face of rejection, my feelings of self-worth remain unaffected.
Anger Rumination Scale (ARS)
1 = almost never; 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, 4 = almost always
1. I ruminate about my past anger experiences.
2. I ponder about the injustices that have been done to me.
3. I keep thinking about events that angered me for a long time.
4. I have long living fantasies of revenge after the conflict is over.
5. I think about certain events from a long time ago and they still make me angry.
6. I have difficulty forgiving people who have hurt me.
7. After an argument is over, I keep fighting with this person in my imagination.
8. Memories of being aggravated pop up into my mind before I fall asleep.
9. Whenever I experience anger, I keep thinking about it for a while.
10. I have had times when I could not stop being preoccupied with a particular
conflict.
11. I analyze events that make me angry.
12. I think about the reasons people treat me badly.
13. I have daydreams and fantasies of violent nature.
14. I feel angry about certain things in my life.
51
15. When someone makes me angry, I can’t stop thinking about how to get back at
this person.
16. When someone provokes me, I keep wondering why this should have happened to
me.
17. Memories of even minor annoyances bother me for a while.
18. When something makes me angry, I turn this matter over and over again in my
mind.
19. I re-enact the anger episode in my mind after it has happened.
52
APPENDIX B – IRB Approval Letter
53
APPENDIX C CONSENT FORM
Project Title: Friend or Foe: Self-Esteem and Social Comparisons - Men Only
Principle Investigator: Niki Knight
Phone: 501-722-3508
Email: [email protected]
College: Education
Department: Psychology
1. Purpose
The purpose of this study is to assess how various aspects of self-concept, personality,
and thinking styles relate to the social behavior of college students.
2. Description of Study:
Participants will be asked to complete online questionnaires about aspects of their
personality, self-concept, thinking styles, and forms of social aggression in which they
have participated or experienced. The study is fully online, will take about 60 minutes to
complete, and is designed to be completed in one session (i.e., starting the study and then
trying to finish it later may not work). Participants who complete the study will receive 1
research credit. Quality assurance checks will be used to make sure that participants are
reading each question carefully and answering thoughtfully. Participants who do not pass
these checks will NOT receive credit for completing the study.
3. Benefits:
Participants will earn 1 research credit for completing the study; those who do not
complete the study will not receive research credit. Participants will receive no other
direct benefits; however, the information provided will enable researchers to better
54
understand the role of personality in social behavior. This study does not involve
treatment procedures of any kind or the potential for medical injury.
4. Risks:
There are no foreseeable risks to participating in this study. If you feel that completing
these questionnaires has resulted in emotional distress, please stop and notify the
researcher ([email protected]). If you should decide at a later date that you
would like to discuss your concerns, please contact the research supervisor, Dr. Eric
Dahlen ([email protected]). Alternatively, you may contact one of several local
agencies, such as:
Student Counseling Services: (601) 266-4601
Community Counseling and Assessment Clinic: (601) 266-4829
Pine Belt Mental Healthcare Resources: (601) 544-4641
5. Confidentiality:
The online questionnaires are designed to be anonymous, and the information you
provide will be kept strictly confidential. Any potentially identifying information (e.g.,
your IP address) will not be retained with your responses.
6. Alternative Procedures:
Students who do not wish to participate in this study may sign up for another study
instead or talk with their instructor(s) about non-research options.
7. Participant's Assurance:
This project has been reviewed by the Institutional Review Board, which ensures that
research projects involving human subjects follow federal regulations.
55
Any questions or concerns about rights as a research participant should be directed to the
Manager of the IRB at 601-266-5997. Participation in this project is completely
voluntary, and participants may withdraw from this study at any time without penalty,
prejudice, or loss of benefits.
Any questions about the research should be directed to the Principal Investigator using
the contact information provided in Project Information Section above.
Consent to Participate: I consent to participate in this study, and in agreeing to do so, I
understand that:
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Consent is hereby given to participate in this research project. All procedures and/or
investigations to be followed and their purpose, including any experimental procedures,
were explained to me. Information was given about all benefits, risks, inconveniences, or
discomforts that might be expected.
The opportunity to ask questions regarding the research and procedures was given.
Participation in the project is completely voluntary, and participants may withdraw at any
time without penalty, prejudice, or loss of benefits. All personal information is strictly
confidential, and no names will be disclosed. Any new information that develops during
the project will be provided if that information may affect the willingness to continue
participation in the project.
Questions concerning the research, at any time during or after the project, should be
directed to the Principal Investigator with the contact information provided above. This
project and this consent form have been reviewed by the Institutional Review Board,
which ensures that research projects involving human subjects follow federal regulations.
56
Any questions or concerns about rights as a research participant should be directed to the
Chair of the Institutional Review Board, The University of Southern Mississippi, 118
College Drive #5147, Hattiesburg, MS, 39406-0001, (601) 266-5997.
57
REFERENCES
Anestis, M. D., Anestis, J. C., Selby, E. A., Joiner, T. E. (2009). Anger rumination across
forms of aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(2), 192-196. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.026.
Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic
review. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 291. doi: 10.1037/1089-
2680.8.4.291
Archer, J. (2010). What is Indirect Aggression in Adults? Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social
aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(3), 212-230. doi:
10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_2.
Arnocky, S., Sunderani, S., Miller, J. L., & Vaillancourt, T. (2012). Jealousy mediates the
relationship between attractiveness comparison and females' indirect aggression.
Personal Relationships, 19(2), 290-303.
Bailey, C. A., & Ostrov, J. M. (2008). Differentiating forms and functions of aggression
in emerging adults: Associations with hostile attribution biases and normative
beliefs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(6), 713-722. doi: 10.1007/s10964-
007-9211-5
Bagner, D. M., Storch, E. A., & Preston, A. S. (2007). Romantic relational aggression:
What about gender? Journal of Family Violence, 22(1), 19-24.
doi:10.1007/s10896-006-9055-x
Baron, R. A., Neuman, J. H. (1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression:
Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior,
58
22(3), 161-173. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:3<161::AID-
AB1>3.0.CO;2-Q
Basow, S. A., Cahill, K. F., Phelan, J. E., Longshore, K., & McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A.
(2007). Perceptions of relational and physical aggression among college students:
Effects of gender of perpetrator, target, and perceiver. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 31(1), 85-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00333.x
Biolcati, R. (2017). The role of self-esteem and Fear of negative evaluation in compulsive
buying. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 8(74). doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00074.
Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, M. J., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys
fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression.
Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117-127.
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. M. (1994). Sex differences in covert
aggression among adults. Aggressive Behavior, 20(1), 27-33 doi: 0.160-
002.'i/94/020O-O177$07.00
Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-
esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to
violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219-229.
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 displaced
aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 969-972. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.969
Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M. & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect
aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender
59
differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development,
79(5), 1185-1229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01184.x
Clingan, S. E., Fisher, D. G., Pedersen, W. C., Reynolds, G. L., & Xandre, P. (2016).
Impulsiveness, and trait displaced aggression among drug using female sex
traders. Addictive Behaviors, 60, 24-31.
Collins, K. A., Westra, H. A., Dozois, D. J., & Stewart, S. H. (2005). The validity of the
brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Journal of Anxiety
Disorders, 19(3), 345-359.
Collins, K., & Bell, R. (1997). Personality and aggression: The dissipation-rumination
scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 22(5), 751-755.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00248-6
Coyne, S. M., Archer, J., & Eslea, M. (2006). “We're not friends anymore! Unless…”:
The frequency and harmfulness of indirect, relational, and social aggression.
Aggressive Behavior, 32(4), 294-307. doi: 10.1002/ab
Crick, N. R., Grotpeter, J. K., & Bigbee, M. A. (2002). Relationally and physically
aggressive children’s intent attributions and feelings of distress for relational and
instrumental peer provocations. Child Development, 73(4), doi: 1134-1142.
10.1111/1467-8624.00462
Crocker, J. (2002). The costs of seeking self–esteem. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3),
597-615.
Crocker, J., Brook, A. T., Niiya, Y., & Villacorta, M. (2006). The Pursuit of Self‐Esteem:
Contingencies of Self‐Worth and Self‐Regulation. Journal of Personality, 74(6),
1749-1772. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00427.x
60
Crocker, J., Karpinski, A., Quinn, D. M., & Chase, S. K. (2003). When grades determine
self-worth: consequences of contingent self-worth for male and female
engineering and psychology majors. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85(3), 507.
Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological
Bulletin, 130(3), 392-399.
Denson, T. F. (2008). Displaced aggression in children and adolescents. New Delhi,
India: Anamaya Publisher.
Denson, T. F., Pedersen, W. C., & Miller, N. (2006). The displaced aggression
questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(6), 1032.
Denson, T. F., Pedersen, W. C., Ronquillo, J., & Nandy, A. S. (2009). The angry brain:
Neural correlates of anger, angry rumination, and aggressive personality. Journal
of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(4), 734-744.
Donahah, E. R., Mohammadkhani, P., & Dolatshahi, B. (2011). Comparison of group and
individual cognitive-behavioral therapy in reducing fear of negative evaluation.
Psychological reports, 108(3), 955-962. doi: 10.2466/02.21.PR0.108.3.955-962
Duke, D., Krishnan, M., Faith, M., & Storch, E. A. (2006). The psychometric properties
of the brief fear of negative evaluation scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 20(6),
807-817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2005.11.002
Duncan, L. & Owen-Smith, A. (2006). Powerlessness and the Use of Indirect Aggression
in Friendships. Sex Roles 55(493), 493-502. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-
006-9103-2
61
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and Aggressive Behavior: A Meta-Analytic
Review of the Social Psychological Literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3),
309-330. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.309
Forrest, S., Eatough, V., & Shevlin, M. (2005). Measuring adult indirect aggression: The
development and psychometric assessment of the indirect aggression scales.
Aggressive Behavior, 31(1), 84-97.
Foster, E. M., Jones, D. (2006). Can a Costly Intervention Be Cost-effective? An
Analysis of Violence Prevention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 63(11):1284–
1291. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.63.11.1284
Fry, D. P., & Gabriel, A. H. (1994). Preface: The cultural construction of gender and
aggression. Sex Roles, 30(3-4), 165-167.
García-Sancho, E., Salguero, J. M., Vasquez, E. A., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2016).
Validity and reliability of the Spanish version of the Displaced Aggression
Questionnaire. Psicothema, 28(1). doi: 10.7334/psicothema2015.222
Ghaedi, G. H., Tavoli, A., Bakhtiari, M., Melyani, M., & Sahragard, M. (2009). Quality
of life in college students with and without social phobia. Social Indicators
Research, 97(2), 247-256. doi: 10.1007/s11205-009-9500-3
Glomb, T. M. (2002). Workplace anger and aggression: Informing conceptual models
with data from specific encounters. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
7(1), 20-36. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.7.1.20
Gold, B. T. (1996). Enviousness and its relationship to maladjustment and
psychopathology. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 311-321.
doi:10.1016/0191-8869(96)00081-5
62
Green, L. R., Richardson, D. R., & Lago, T. (1996). How do friendship, indirect, and
direct aggression relate? Aggressive Behavior, 22(2), 81-86. doi:
10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:2<81::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-X
Gros, D.F., Stauffacher-Gros, K., & Simms, L.J. (2010). Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 34(2), 134-143. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9236-z.
Hanby, M. S., Fales, J., Nangle, D. W., Serwik, A. K., & Hedrich, U. J. (2012). Social
anxiety as a predictor of dating aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
27(10), 1867-1888. doi: 10.1177/08862501143349
Hess, N. H., & Hagen, E. H. (2006). Sex differences in indirect aggression: Psychological
evidence from young adults. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(3), 231-245. doi:
10.1016/j.evolhumanbehav.2005.11.001.
Hoobler, J. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Abusive supervision and family undermining as
displaced aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1125-1133.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037 /0021-90 10.91.5.1125
Kernis, M. H. (1993). The roles of stability and level of self-esteem in psychological
functioning. Self-Esteem, 167-182. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4684-8956-9_9
Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological
Inquiry, 14(1), 1-26.
Kernis, M. H. (2005). Measuring self‐esteem in context: The importance of stability of
self‐esteem in psychological functioning. Journal of Personality, 73(6), 1569-
1605. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00359.x
Goldman, B. M., & Kernis, M. H. (2002). The role of authenticity in healthy
psychological functioning and subjective well-being. Annals of the American
63
Psychotherapy Association, 5(6), 18-20.
Kernis, M. H., Lakey, C. E., & Heppner, W. L. (2008). Secure versus fragile high self‐
esteem as a predictor of verbal defensiveness: Converging findings across three
different markers. Journal of Personality, 76(3), 477-512. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
6494.2008.00493.x
Klem, J. (2008). The impact of indirect aggression on college student adjustment.
Unpublished dissertation, Auburn University.
Kusy, J. A. (2011). Relationship Between Indirect Aggression and Social Anxiety in a
College Sample. (Unpublished master's thesis). Eastern Illinois University.
Konecni, V. J. (1974). Self-arousal, dissipation of anger, and aggression. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 192-194
Krizan, Z., & Johar, O. (2012). Envy divides the two faces of narcissism. Journal of
Personality, 80(5), 1415-1451.
Lagerspetz, K. M., Björkqvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect aggression typical of
females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11-to 12‐year‐old children.
Aggressive Behavior, 14(6), 403-414. doi: 10.1002/1098-
2337(1988)14:6<403::AID-AB2480140602>3.0.CO;2
Lange, F. (1971). Frustration – aggression. A reconsideration. European Journal of
Social Psychology 1(1), 59-84. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420010106
Lange, J., & Crusius, J. (2015). Dispositional envy revisited: Unraveling the motivational
dynamics of benign and malicious envy. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 41, 284–294. doi:10.1177/0146167214564959
64
Linder, J. R., Crick, N. R., & Collins, W. A. (2002). Relational aggression and
victimization in young adults' romantic relationships: Associations with
perceptions of parent, peer, and romantic relationship quality. Social
Development, 11(1), 69-86. doi: 10.1111/1467-9507.00187
Lochman, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). Social-cognitive processes of severely violent,
moderately aggressive, and non-aggressive boys. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 62, 366-37. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.62.2.366
Loudin, J. L., Loukas, A., & Robinson, S. (2003). Relational Aggression in College
Students: Examining the Roles of Social Anxiety and Empathy. Aggressive
Behavior, 29(5), 430-439. doi:10.1002/ab.10039
Loukas, A., Paulos, S. K., & Robinson, S. (2005). Early adolescent social and overt
aggression: Examining the roles of social anxiety and maternal psychological
control. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(4), 335-345. doi: 10.1007/s10964-
005-5757-2
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data.
Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437. doi: 10.1037/a0028085.
Mercy, J. A., Krug, E. G., Dahlberg, L. L., Zwi, A. B. (2003). Violence and Health: The
United States in a Global Perspective, American Journal of Public Health, 93(2),
256-261. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.93.2.256
Miceli, M., & Castelfranchi, C. (2007). The envious mind. Cognition and Emotion, 21(3),
449-479.
65
Moroschan, G., Hurd, P. L., & Nicoladis, E. (2009). Sex differences in the use of indirect
aggression in adult Canadians. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(2), doi:
147470490900700201.
Neff, K. D., & Vonk, R. (2009). Self‐compassion versus global self-esteem: Two
different ways of relating to oneself. Journal of Personality, 77(1), 23-50. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00537.x
Neighbors, C., Larimer, M. E., Markman Geisner, I., & Knee, C. R. (2004). Feeling
controlled and drinking motives among college students: Contingent self-esteem
as a mediator. Self and Identity, 3(3), 207-224. doi: 10.1080/1357500444000029
Neufeld, D. C., & Johnson, E. A. (2015). Burning with envy? Dispositional and
situational influences on envy in grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Journal of
Personality, 45, 320-329, doi: 10.111/jopy.12192
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Morrow, J. (1991). A prospective study of depression and
posttraumatic stress symptoms after a natural disaster: The 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1), 115-121.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.1.115
Osterman, P. (1994). Supervision, discretion, and work organization. The American
Economic Review, 84(2), 380-384
Patrick, H., Neighbors, C., & Knee, C. R. (2004). Appearance-related social
comparisons: The role of contingent self-esteem and self-perceptions of
attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), 501-514. doi:
10.1177/0146167203261891
66
Paradise, A. W., & Kernis, M. H. (1999). Development of the Contingent Self-Esteem
Scale. Unpublished data, University of Georgia.
Paradise, A. W., Kernis, M. H. (2002). Self-esteem and psychological well-being:
Implications of fragile self-esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
21(4), 345-361.
Paquette, J., & Underwood, M. (1999). Gender Differences in Young Adolescents'
Experiences of Peer Victimization: Social and Physical Aggression. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 45(2), 242-266. doi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23093677
Rapee, R. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (1997). A cognitive-behavioral model of anxiety in
social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35(8), 741-756. doi:
10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00022-3
Ray, R. D., Wilhelm, F. H., & Gross, J. J. (2008). All in the mind's eye? Anger
rumination and reappraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1),
133-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.133
Richardson, D. R., & Green, L. R. (1999). Social sanction and threat explanations of
gender effects on direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25(6), 425-
434.
Rentzsch, K., & Gross, J. J. (2015). Who turns green with envy? Conceptual and
empirical perspectives on dispositional envy. European Journal of Personality,
29(5), 530-547.
Rentzsch, K., Schröder-Abé, M., & Schütz, A. (2015). Envy mediates the relation
between low academic self-esteem and hostile tendencies. Journal of Research in
Personality, 58, 143-153.
67
Roberts, J., Gotlib, I. H., Gilboa-Schechtman, E. (1998). Ruminative response style and
vulnerability to episodes of dysphoria: Gender, neuroticism, and episode duration.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 22(4), 401-423. doi:
10.1023/A:1018713313894
Rodenbaugh, T. L., Woods, C. M., Thissen, D. M. Heimberg, R. G. Chambless, D. L., &
Rapee, R. M. (2004). More information from fewer questions: The factor
structure and item properties of the original and brief fear of negative evaluation
scale. Psychological Assessment, 16(2), 169-181. doi: 10.1037/1040-
3590.16.2.169
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, 790-803.
Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1984). Some antecedents and consequences of social-
comparison jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(4), 780-
792 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.4.780
Schaubroeck, J., & Lam, S. S. (2004). Comparing lots before and after: Promotion
rejectees' invidious reactions to promotees. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 94(1), 33-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.01.001
Schmeelk, K. M., & Sylvers, P. (2008). Trait correlates of relational aggression in a
nonclinical sample: DSM-IV personality disorders and psychopathy. Journal of
Personality Disorders, 22(3), 269.
68
Smith, R. H., Parrott, W. G., Diener, E. F., Hoyle, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (1999).
Dispositional envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(8), 1007-
1020.
Smith, R. H., Kim, S. H. (2007). Comprehending envy. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 46–
64. doi:10.1037/0033- 2909.133.1.46.
Smith, R. H., Parrott, W. G., Diener, E. F., Hoyle, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (1999).
Dispositional envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1007–1020.
doi:10.1177/01461672992511008
Storch, E. A., Bagner, D. M., Geffken, G. R., & Baumeister, A. L. (2004). Association
between overt and relational aggression and psychosocial adjustment in
undergraduate college students. Violence and Victims, 19(6), 689-700.
doi:10.1007/s10862-011-9274-1
Sukhodolsky, D. G., Golub, A., & Cromwell, E. N. (2001). Development and validation
of the anger rumination scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(5), 689-
700.
Tai, K., Narayanan, J., & McAllister, D. J. (2012). Envy as pain: Rethinking the nature of
envy and its implications for employees and organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 37(1), 107-129. doi: 10.5465/amr.2009.0484
Tedeschi, J. T., & Norman, N. (1985). Social power, self-presentation, and the self. The
Self and Social Life, 293(322).
Toldos, M. P. (2005). Sex and age differences in self‐estimated physical, verbal and
indirect aggression in Spanish adolescents. Aggressive Behavior, 31(1), 13-23.doi:
10.1002/ab.20034
69
Turner, K. A., & White, B. A. (2015). Contingent on contingencies: Connections between
anger rumination, self-esteem, and aggression. Personality and Individual
Differences, 82, 199-202.
Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2003). Effect size substantive interpretation guidelines:
Issues in the interpretation of effect sizes. Washington, DC: What Works
Clearinghouse.
Veselka, L., Giammarco, E. A., & Vernon, P. A. (2014). The Dark Triad and the seven
deadly sins. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 75-80.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.055
Vidaillet, B. (2007). Lacanian theory's contribution to the study of workplace envy.
Human Relations, 60(11), 1669-1700.
Walker, S., Richardson, D. S., & Green, L. R. (2000). Aggression among older adults:
The relationship of interaction networks and gender role to direct and indirect
responses. Aggressive Behavior, 26(2), 145-154.
Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(4), 448. doi:10.1037/h0027806
Weeks, J. W., Heimberg, R. G., Fresco, D. M., Hart, T. A., Turk, C. L., Schneier, F. R.,
& Liebowitz, M. R. (2005). Empirical validation and psychometric evaluation of
the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale in patients with social anxiety
disorder. Psychological Assessment, 17(2), 179-190. doi: 0.1037/1040-
3590.17.2.179
Weeks, J. W., Heimberg, R. G., & Rodebaugh, T. L. (2008). The Fear of Positive
Evaluation Scale: Assessing a proposed cognitive component of social anxiety.
70
Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 22(1), 44-55.