AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR

Volume 30, pages 4361 (2004)

Agreeableness as a Predictor of Aggression in

Adolescence
Katie A. Gleason,1 Lauri A. Jensen-Campbell,1 and Deborah South Richardson2
1
University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas
2
Augusta State University, Augusta, Georgia

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
This multi-method research linked the Big Five personality dimensions to aggression in early
adolescence. Agreeableness was the personality dimension of focus because this dimension is associated
with motives to maintain positive interpersonal relations. In two studies, middle school children were
assessed on the Big Five domains of personality. Study 1 showed that agreeableness was associated with
both indirect and direct aggression. In addition, the link between agreeableness and aggression was
strongest for direct strategies. Study 2 examined the hypotheses that agreeableness predicts social
cognitions associated with aggression, peer reports of direct aggression, and teacher reports of
adjustment. Agreeableness predicted peer reports of aggression and social cognitions associated with
aggression. In addition, aggression mediated the link between agreeableness and adjustment. Results
suggest that of the Big Five dimensions, Agreeableness is most closely associated with processes and
outcomes related to aggression in adolescents. Aggr. Behav. 30:4361, 2004. r 2004 Wiley-Liss,
Inc.
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Keywords: personality; aggression; social behavior; agreeableness; adolescence; adjustment

Aggression appears to be a growing problem in our society. On any given day newspapers are
lled with accounts of aggression among students, spouses, and nations. Although lethal
incidences of violence in schools are still relatively rare, aggression in schools is common
[Annual Report on School Safety, 1998]. Aggression is not just a problem for the victims.
Children who are aggressive are often rejected from their peer group [Boivin and Begin, 1989;
French, 1988]. Moreover, rejectees often maintain their rejected status and have a greater risk
of developing serious adjustment problems later in life [Asher and Coie, 1990; Kupersmidt
and Coie, 1990].

n
Correspondence to: L. A. Jensen-Campbell or K.A. Gleason, Department of Psychology, University of Texas at
Arlington, Room 313 Life Science Bldg., Box 19528, Arlington, Texas 760190528 or Deborah Richardson,
Psychology Department, Augusta State University, 2500 Walton Way, Augusta, GA 309042200.
n
Received 1 January 2002; amended version accepted 30 September 2002
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ab. 20002

r 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

44 Gleason et al.

The present research was aimed at exploring the contribution of personality, namely
agreeableness, to aggressive behavior in early adolescence. Personality may be dened as
structured individual differences organized to assist a person and his/her adaptation to the
environment [Graziano, 2003]. One widely accepted approach to conceptualizing and
measuring personality traits is the Big Five dimensions of personality [Digman and
Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Goldberg, 1992]. Agreeableness, the Big Five dimension that
accounts for the largest amount of variance in descriptions of the self and others, has been
linked to early appearing self-regulatory processes and the desire to maintain smooth
interpersonal relations. Given these associations, agreeableness should most closely be
associated with processes and outcomes related to aggression.

Personality and Self-Regulation

An important mechanism that inhibits aggressive behavior is related to individual
differences in self-regulation. Self-regulatory processes are assumed to be necessary to inhibit
actions that an individual may otherwise be inclined to perform (i.e., self-control). Bandura
[1986] noted that the acquisition of self-regulatory processes allows humans to be less
reexive and more planful than they might be without such processes. Zillmann [1988]
suggested that arousal often subsumes cognitions that may otherwise deter aggressive
behavior. Thus, individuals who have stronger self-control over negative affect when in a
potentially provocative situation should be less likely to retaliate.
Rothbart and her colleagues [e.g., Ahadi and Rothbart, 1994; Rothbart and Bates, 1998;
Rothbart and Posner, 1985] provided a conceptual analysis of self-regulation that involves
temperament. In traditional accounts of temperament [e.g., Buss and Plomin, 1984],
individuals are disposed towards patterns of social behavior within specic domains,
such as emotionality, sociability, and activity. Effortful control (EC) is an additional
aspect of temperament that can be dened as the ability to suppress a dominant behavior in
order to perform a subdominant response. It is thought to control other temperament
systems [Ahadi and Rothbart, 1994; Kochanska et al., 2000; Rothbart and Bates, 1998;
Rothbart and Posner, 1985]. EC is associated with early-appearing individual differences
in the ability to sustain and shift attention, and the ability to initiate and inhibit
action voluntarily. For example, Kochanska et al. [2000] found that effortful control in
small children was linked to more regulated positive and negative affect and to stronger
restraint.
Ahadi and Rothbart [1994] go further, suggesting a developmental connection between
early appearing processes of EC and subsequent personality structure in children,
adolescents, and adults. Specically, Ahadi and Rothbart propose that EC indexes the
common developmental process underlying agreeableness [Graziano, 1994; Graziano and
Eisenberg, 1997]. They found that fear and anger are separable in both infancy and
adulthood, and that only anger loads on the negative pole of agreeableness. In addition,
Robins et al., [1994] found that agreeableness is negatively related to adolescent antisocial
personality and self-reported delinquency. Compared with their peers, high agreeable persons
respond to interpersonal conict more constructively [Graziano et al., 1996; Jensen-Campbell
et al., 1996; Jensen-Campbell and Graziano, 2001], cooperate more productively during
interdependent group tasks [Graziano et al., 1997], and work harder to suppress negative
emotions during social interaction [Tobin et al., 2000] in part because they are able to control
frustration caused by other people.
 Agreeableness and Aggression 45

Agreeableness and Interpersonal Behavior

Moving from a biobehavioral level of analysis to interpersonal theory, agreeableness is also
believed to be a dimension of personality that reects an individuals motivation to maintain
harmonious interpersonal relations, and to minimize interpersonal conicts. [Graziano and
Eisenberg, 1997; Jensen-Campbell and Graziano, 2001]. Agreeableness has been linked to the
striving for afliation with others and exerts its inuence in the way individuals use strategies
and are motivated to behave within given social situations [Graziano and Eisenberg, 1997;
Graziano et al., 1997; Hogan, 1983; McAdams, 1995]. In other words, agreeable people desire
to maintain positive relations with others more than do persons lower in agreeableness. This
induces the agreeable person to generate positive perceptions and attributions to otherwise
provocative behavior [Graziano et al., 1996, 1997]. These attributions lead the agreeable
person to regard a provocative situation with less negative affect, to select more constructive
conict tactics, and to generate a more constructive pattern of oppositions and less
aggression during conict than would a low agreeable person [Graziano et al., 1996; Jensen-
Campbell and Graziano, 1999; Jensen-Campbell et al., 1996].

Personality and Adolescence

One of the most complex life ecologies surrounds the transition from childhood to
adolescence. Nowhere in the life course are conicts among diverse intrapersonal and
interpersonal forces, and problems of adjustment, more apparent than in the transition to
adolescence [e.g., Larson and Richards, 1994]. In adolescence, relations with parents and
peers are altered, school structure and academic requirements change, puberty takes place,
and sex roles are reevaluated [Simmons and Blythe, 1987]. In addition, developmental
transitions are periods in the life course when personality is most inuential [Caspi and
Moft, 1993]. In other words, stable individual differences will have their greatest impact in
weak ambiguous situations or when new responsibilities are not yet mastered, which are
distinctive of transition periods [Caspi and Moft, 1993; Ickes, 1982].

Present Research
Present research examined whether agreeableness would be negatively linked to aggressive
behavior in adolescence, focusing on young adolescents because this age is thought to
represent an important period of psychological and social transition [Pelligrini, 2001]. A
major goal of this research is to understand whether individual differences in agreeableness
make this developmental period difcult for some adolescents, but not for others. Although a
case could be made for expecting all ve dimensions of personality to be associated with
childrens peer relations and adjustment, the personality dimension of agreeableness may be
especially important for understanding aggressive behavior in adolescence. It is probable that
the other four dimensions in the Big Five may also be related to aggression. For example,
Extraversion contains elements of surgency, sociability, and social interest [Elphick et al.,
1998]. Thus, for the sake of completeness, we measured all ve dimensions of personality to
explore possible relations. Two studies are reported. The rst examined personality in
relation to self-reports of indirect and direct aggression; the second examined personality in
relation to social cognitions that promote aggression, peer reports of aggression, and
interpersonal adjustment during adolescence.
46 Gleason et al.

Study 1
Study 1 examined the link between personality and self-reported aggressive behavior in
adolescence. Crick and Grotpeter [1995] argue that there are various forms of aggression that
may be more relevant to some groups of children (e.g., boys versus girls). In other words,
children can use different forms of aggression (e.g., physical aggression vs. social ostracism;
Crick et al., 1997], and the role of agreeableness in aggression toward peers may depend on
the nature of the aggression under study.
Other researchers have also argued that aggressive acts may be delivered either directly or
indirectly. Richardson and her colleagues [Richardson and Green, 1997; Walker et al., 2000]
agree that aggressors who use direct strategies are more easily identiable and are often
involved in direct confrontation with another person. On the other hand, aggressors who use
indirect strategies may be trying to avoid direct confrontation and association with the
aggressive act. For example, older adults use more indirect forms of aggression than direct
forms [Walker and Richardson, 1998]; the use of less risky indirect strategies may be
associated with higher levels of emotional self-regulation among older adults and the
motivation of older adults to protect their relationships. Given that agreeableness has been
linked to motives to maintain positive relations, it is possible that the link between
agreeableness and aggression would be strongest for direct aggression. High agreeable
adolescents will want to avoid any direct relationship-threatening tactics compared to their
low agreeable counterparts, especially tactics that involve direct confrontation and
association with the aggressive act.

METHOD
Research Participants
A total of 38 boys and 36 girls in 7th (n = 50) and 8th (n = 24) grade participated in this
study after they had received parental permission for participation. Ethnicity information
was not collected on the children, but the admissions procedures of the school are designed to
ensure that the SES and ethnicity composition reects the population of Florida (68% white,
18% African American, 13% Hispanic, and 1% Asian; 6% $017,400, 12% $17,500
32,499, 22% 32,50052,499, and 60% 52,500 or more). The overall average participation
rate was 71.15%.

MATERIALS
Personality measures
The Big Five Inventory (BFI) was utilized to measure the ve dimensions of personality
[John et al., 1991]. Students were given a number of characteristics that might or might not
apply to them. For each statement, children were told to indicate the extent to which they
agreed or disagreed with that statement on a scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5
(agree strongly). Each statement was phrased as I see myself as someone who is . . . Items
on the agreeableness scale included: tends to nd fault with others; is helpful and unselsh
with others; starts quarrels with others; has a forgiving nature; is generally trusting;
is cold and aloof, reserved; is considerate and kind to almost everyone; is sometimes
 Agreeableness and Aggression 47

rude to others; and likes to cooperate with others. Internal consistencies for the ve
dimensions ranged from .69 to .78. The internal consistency for agreeableness was .75 and the
mean was 3.65 (SD = .64; skewness = .32).

Measures of Aggression
The Richardson Conict Response Questionnaire [RCRQ; Green et al., 1996; Richardson
and Green, 1999] was used to assess self-reported direct and indirect aggression. Participants
were asked to think of all of the times in the past month or so in which someone had done or
said something to make them angry. They were then asked to indicate from 1 (never) to 5
(very often) how frequently they did each of the behaviors in response to someone making
them angry. Direct aggression was measured with the following 10 items: yelled or screamed
at them, threatened to hit or throw something at them, cursed at them, threw
something at them, hit (or tried to hit) them with something hard, insulted them, hit
(or tried to hit) the other person but not with anything, pushed, grabbed, or shoved them,
threw something or smashed something, and kicked them. Cronbachs alpha for direct
aggression scale was .89. The mean was 24.24 (SD = 9.30); the range was from 11.00 to 50.00,
with a skewnesso1.00.
Indirect aggression was measured with the following 10 items: spread rumors, made up
stories to get them in trouble, made negative comments about their appearance to someone
else, took something that belonged to them, told others not to associate with them,
gathered other friends to my side, destroyed or damaged something of theirs, told
others about the matter, called them names behind their back, and gossiped behind their
back. Cronbachs alpha for the indirect aggression scale was .83. The mean was 22.96
(SD = 7.78); the range was 10.00 to 43.00, with a skewness o1.00.

Procedure
Researchers met with the students in their classroom. The participants were told that they
were going to be given some questionnaires about what they do when they have
disagreements with other people. They were then told that they would be asked to describe
themselves. Researchers then told them that they were going to use their answers to try to
understand how and why some people respond differently to conict than do other people.
They were told that their answers were anonymous and that no one would know what they
said. Students then completed the RCRQ, a measure of interpersonal competency, and the
Big Five Inventory (BFI). Participants were told that when they nished, they should sit
quietly until everyone in the class was done. Once everyone in the class had completed the
questionnaires, the researchers thanked them for their participation and left the classroom.
Results from the interpersonal competency measure are not reported in this paper.

RESULTS
Overview
First, intercorrelations among the measures were examined. Subsequently, analyses were
conducted to examine the unique contribution of each of the ve dimensions of personality to
childrens self-reported direct and indirect aggression. It was anticipated that agreeableness
would be uniquely and negatively related to both direct and indirect aggression. In addition,
48 Gleason et al.

it was predicted that the relation between agreeableness and aggression would be strongest
for direct strategies.

Intercorrelations of Measures
Zero-order correlations among the measures are presented in Table I. Several features of
these correlations are noteworthy. As expected, the relation between direct and indirect
aggression was substantiated, r(73) = .61, po.001. In addition, agreeableness was
consistently related to the indexes of aggression.

The Relation of Personality to Self-Reported Aggression

To examine the hypothesis that agreeableness is negatively associated with self-reports of
aggression, a preliminary regression analysis was run (with direct and indirect aggression as
the criterion variables); sex of participant was entered as control variable on the rst step and
the ve dimensions of personality were entered on the second step. Agreeableness and
conscientiousness predicted self-reported indirect aggression, ts(53) =
2.13,
2.48, po.04,
srs =
.26,
.301. Only agreeableness predicted self-reported direct aggression,
t(53) =
2.52, po.02, sr =
.28. There was no evidence that extraversion, emotional
stability, or openness predicted aggression (See Table II).
Next, we examined whether the relation between agreeableness and aggression was
moderated by the type of aggression (i.e., direct versus indirect) using a repeated measures
general linear model. Operationally, agreeableness was treated as a continuous variable and
centered to avoid problems with unstandardized solutions [Aiken and West, 1991]; type of
aggression was treated as a repeated measures variable. There was a signicant agreeableness
X type of aggression interaction, F(1, 65) = 4.03, po.05, Z2 = .06. As predicted, the link

Table I. Study 1: Intercorrelations Among Measures

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Extroversion
2. Agreeableness 0.06 (63)
3. Conscientiousness 0.16 (65) 0.34nn (66)
4. Neuroticism
0.40nn (65)
0.31n (64)
0.44nn (69)
5. Openness 0.38nn (64) 0.16 (65) 0.22+ (71)
0.10 (68)
6. Indirect Aggression
0.01 (66)
0.32nn (67)
0.35nn (72) 0.16 (69)
0.08 (70)
7. Direct Aggression
0.02 (66)
0.47nn (67)
0.29n (72) 0.15 (70)
0.14 (71) 0.61nn (73)

Note: +po.10; npo.05; nn

po.01; Ns are in parentheses behind each correlation

1
Our degrees of freedom within each study vary for the differing analyses. This variation is due to two factors: (1) the
number of predictors in each equation and (2) missing data from participants. For example, 15 participants in Study
1 did not have complete data and were dropped from the larger regression analyses. Supplementary analyses that
replaced missing data on individual items within a scale with scalar midpoints produced virtually identical results.
Moreover, there was no systematic pattern for our missing data. A total of 4 participants were dropped from larger
analyses in Study 2 due to missing data.
 Agreeableness and Aggression 49

Table II. Study 1: Relation (b) of Each Personality Dimension to Self-Reported Aggression
Indirect Aggression Direct Aggression

Multiple R2 0.23 0.34

Contribution of Measures b sr t-value b sr t-value

Sex of participant 0.21 0.19 1.54
0.29
0.25
2.24n
Extraversion
0.03
0.02
0.18 0.06 0.05 0.41
Agreeableness
0.31
0.26
2.13n
0.34
0.28
2.52n
Conscientiousness
0.35
0.30
2.48n
0.19
0.16
1.43
Emotional Stability
0.14
0.10
0.84
0.02
0.01
0.13
Openness to Experience
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.40

Note: npo.05; N = 59 adolescents

Figure 1.

between agreeableness and aggression was strongest for direct aggression (See Table 1 and
Figure 1).
Finally, we examined whether sex of participant moderated the link between personality
and aggression given that previous research has found that there are sex differences in the
forms of aggression that are used. For each regression analysis, agreeableness and
conscientiousness were centered and entered into the equation [Aiken and West, 1991]. In
addition, sex of participant and all corresponding cross-products were entered. There was no
evidence that sex of participant moderated the relation between personality and self-reported
aggression, ts (59)o 1.23, srso0.15, ns. In sum, agreeableness and conscientiousness directly
predicted self-reported aggression and this relation was not moderated by the sex of the
participant.

Supplementary analyses
It is possible that the link between agreeableness and aggression is due to item overlap
among the construct of agreeableness and aggression, inating the correlation among
50 Gleason et al.

measures. To examine this possibility we removed items on the agreeableness scale that could
potentially be seen as overlapping with aggression items. In other words, we examined the
impact of agreeableness after overlapping items were removed (i.e., starts quarrels with
others; is sometimes rude to others). Our new agreeableness composite was still associated
with both indirect and direct aggression (r =
.29,
.38, po.02).
Next, we examined whether non-overlapping items predicted aggression after controlling
for overlapping items. Given individual agreeable items were entered as predictors,
collinearity could potentially be an issue [Pedhazur, 1997]. Following procedures outlined
by Pedhazur [1997] to control for collinearity, overlapping items were entered on the rst step
and non-overlapping items were entered on the 2nd step. For direct aggression, the non-
overlapping items still bore signicant independent associations with aggression (DF = 3.10,
po.01, DR2 = 22.3%). For indirect aggression, the nonoverlapping items were still
marginally associated with aggression (DF = 1.93, p = .08, DR2 = 18.2%).

Study 2
Study 2 was designed to examine the links among personality, aggressive-inducing
cognitions, peer reports of aggression, and adjustment. Given the relation between
agreeableness and aggression was strongest for direct aggression, only direct aggression
was examined here. First, we extended the ndings of Study 1 by examining the possibility
that agreeableness would be negatively related to peer-reported aggressive behavior. Study 1
only focused on agreeableness associations with self-reported aggression; it is possible that
adolescents self-perceptions may be inaccurate. To examine this possibility, Study 2
examined whether self-reported agreeableness is associated with observed aggression
(as reported by peers).
Second, study 1 focused solely on the link between personality and perceived social
behavior. It did not, however, examine possible underlying psychological mechanisms that
could be responsible for this association. In study 2, we examined the possibility that
agreeableness is associated with social cognitions known to produce and maintain aggressive
behaviors. Social-cognitive processes may be a main route through which the desire to
maintain smooth interpersonal relations associated with agreeableness are translated into
behavior in a specic situation [Graziano et al., 1997]. This may occur in several ways. Social
cognitive processes may steer agreeable people to certain strategies for dealing with
aggression. It might also inhibit aggressive thinking or promote more prosocial thinking.
This study focused specically on social cognitions that were emphasized by social-
cognitive theorists as playing a critical role not only in the acquisition of aggressive behaviors
but also in the continuation of these behaviors [Bandura, 1986]. Specically, adolescents
beliefs about their ability to perform certain behaviors and the value they place on those
behaviors largely predict their performance [Bandura, 1986; Perry et al., 1990]. Cognitions in
the current study focused on the perceptions of self-efcacy for aggression, expectations
about the outcomes associated with the aggressive behavior, and the value placed on these
outcomes.
Our third hypothesis, an extension of our second hypothesis, examined the possibility that
aggression-encouraging cognitions at least partially mediated the link between agreeableness
and peer reports of direct aggression given that previous research has found that aggression-
encouraging cognitions promoted aggression both contemporaneously and over the school
year [Boldizar et al., 1989; Dodge et al., 1986; Egan et al., 1998; Perry et al., 1986, 1990;
 Agreeableness and Aggression 51

Slaby and Guerra, 1988]. No study, however, has examined whether these cognitions mediate
the association between structured individual differences, such as agreeableness and
aggressive behavior. Agreeable children may believe they are less capable of performing
aggressive acts, or place less value on outcomes associated with aggression, than do children
lower in agreeableness.
Finally, Study 1 never directly linked agreeableness to adjustment processes. Given that
one of the most complex life ecologies surrounds the transition from childhood to
adolescence, empirical research should focus on what factors contribute to adjustment during
this time period. Adjustment can be conceptualized as an adolescents attempts to adapt to
the diverse demands placed on him/her by internal constraints and external requirements
[Colvin, 1993, p 862863; Harter, 1983, 1993]. Little is known, however, about the ways that
personality is related to childrens adaptations to their social environments. Personality may
exert its inuence on adolescent adjustment intrapersonally (e.g., through processes of
internal coherence) or interpersonally (e.g., through processes of accommodations to others).
It is possible, for example, that the Agreeableness-adjustment link is at least partially
mediated by patterns of social exchanges (e.g., aggression) [Finch and Graziano, 2001; Finch
et al., 1999]. For example, previous research has found that children who engage in aggressive
exchanges are more at risk for developing serious adjustment problems [Asher and Coie,
1990]. Thus, we examined the possibility that aggressive behaviors mediate the link between
agreeableness and teacher-reported adjustment.

METHOD
Research Participants
A total of 47 students in 6th (n = 26) and 7th grade (n = 21) (23 boys, 24 girls), who had
received parental permission, participated in this study. Proportions based on ethnic
background were 85.1% European Americans, 8.5% Hispanic Americans, and 6.4% African
Americans. The admissions procedures of the school are designed to ensure that the SES
composition reects the population of Florida. The 47 participants in this study were children
who had participated in two larger research projects at their school that initially were
conceived and conducted as independent studies [Egan and Perry, 1998; Egan et al., 1998;
Jensen-Campbell et al., 2001]. One study was an investigation of personality and self-concept.
The other study was an investigation of aggressive behavior. The 47 children who
participated in the present study represent a subset of children who participated in both of
the foregoing studies (and for whom data on both personality and aggression were therefore
available). The overall average response rate for the current sample was 73.5%.

Materials
Personality measures. Computer versions of standard scales were used to obtain
measures of each of the Big Five dimensions [for details on the computer assessment
methodology, see Graziano et al., 1997, 1998]. To measure the ve dimensions of personality,
we used Goldbergs [1992] bipolar self-rating markers. Cronbachs alphas ranged from .66
(emotional stability) to .78 (agreeableness).
For Goldbergs [1992] trait markers, several steps were followed to create composites for
each of the ve dimensions of personality. First, we used a relatively simple summing
52 Gleason et al.

procedure. Instead of presenting the markers in a bipolar format (e.g., warm-cold), we

separated the poles and presented them in a unipolar format [Briggs, 1989, 1992]. This
allowed us to produce difference scores for each of the ve dimensions. For example,
agreeableness was the sum of the differences for the persons self-ratings of [warm-cold],
[kind-unkind], [cooperative-uncooperative], [unselsh-selsh], [polite-rude], [trustful-distrust-
ful], [generous-stingy], [exible-stubborn], [considerate-inconsiderate], and [agreeable-quar-
relsome]. Larger numbers indicated higher numbers on agreeableness with a minimum of
40
and a maximum of 40. We also used a quasi-Q scoring procedure recommended by
Goldberg [1992] to produce less dependence among the ve-factor scores.
Social cognitive measures of aggression. Five 8item scales were used to measure
social cognitions pertaining to aggression [Boldizar et al., 1989; Perry et al., 1986, 1990].
Participants were asked to imagine they were experiencing a mild provocation with a peer
and they were considering using direct aggression. Participants then reported their cognitions
using 4point scale [for details, see Egan et al., 1998]. Totals on each scale could range from 8
to 32; higher scores represented higher levels of aggression-encouraging thought. Actual
scores ranged from 8 to 31, with skewnesso1.00. The ve categories of cognitions that were
investigated included self-efcacy for aggression (i.e., how competent the participant thought
he/she was at aggression), expectation for reward (i.e., expectation that aggression will be
successful), expectation for victim suffering, value of reward (i.e., value child placed on the
reward that he/she would received from aggressive act), and value of victim suffering (i.e.,
degree to which participant would desire or would not be concerned by the aggression).
Cronbachs alphas for the measures were .83, .66, .65, .80, and .88, respectively.
Peer assessments of aggressive behavior. A modied version of the Peer
Nomination Inventory (PNI) was used to assess aggression [Wiggins and Winder, 1961].
Children were asked to check off the names of classmates who exhibited the behavior
identied in each item. For example, children were asked to nominate any classmate who hit
and pushed other kids. Scores on Aggression were calculated by obtaining the percentage of
classmates (of either sex) who checked a childs name for each aggressive statement and then
totaling these percentages for the scale. Aggression could range from 0 to 300 [see Egan and
Perry, 1998; Egan et al., 1998]. Actual scores ranged from 7.78 to 200.56 (skewness = 1.03).
Teacher reports of adjustment. A ve-item measure was also created to measure
teachers professional evaluation of adolescents overall adjustment. Teachers were asked to
rate the students on their academic performance, same-sex peer relations, opposite sex peer
relations, teacher relations, and classroom behavior using a 1 (not well adjusted) to 5 (very
well adjusted) Likert-type scale. A teacher who reported knowing the participant well was
chosen to complete the assessment. During one session, the teacher was asked to assess the
students adjustment at the beginning of the school year and now (i.e., at the end of the
school year) [Graziano and Ward, 1992; Graziano et al., 1997]. The assessment covered two
time periods because it was possible that adjustment problems appearing at the beginning of
the school year might be unstable, transitory student responses to novel contexts, teachers or
institutional requirements [Eccles et al., 1989].

Procedure
Each child was rst assessed individually in a self-paced computer format in the fall of the
school year. Participants were taken from class and shown how to use the computer to
describe themselves as accurately as possible [see Graziano et al., 1998, for a more detailed
 Agreeableness and Aggression 53

description]. Following Goldbergs [1992] trait marker format, the computer instructed
students to describe themselves as they are now, compared to other students the same age and
sex. Marker adjectives appeared on the screen one at a time. Using the arrow keys, the
student moved a cursor to rate each word as an accurate description, from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). If the student did not know a word, he or she could press
the [F1] key for a denition. They again rated each item from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). When they nished the scales, participants were thanked and escorted back
to class.
Children were later asked to complete the PNI and social cognitive measures of aggression
in both the fall and spring term. Children were tested in groups of 46 children by an adult
who read the test instrument to the children while they followed along and marked their
responses. Teachers were also asked to give us their professional evaluation of the childrens
overall adjustment. Since our measures were highly stable across the two time assessments
(e.g., self-efcacy for aggression, r = .71; direct aggression, r = .79; adjustment, r = .88,
pso.001), we averaged the two ratings together for each construct to make a single more
reliable composite score.

RESULTS
Inter-correlations of Measures
Table III presents the zero-order correlations among the measures. As expected,
agreeableness predicted self-reported social cognitive measures of aggression, peer reports
of aggressive behavior, and teacher reports of adjustment. Interpretation of these
results appears in a subsequent section describing the results of the appropriate regression
analysis.

Hypothesis 1: Does Agreeableness predict Aggression?

Agreeableness was negatively related to peer reports of aggression, r(43) =
.49, po.01.
To examine further the hypothesis that self-reported agreeableness predicts peer reports of
aggression, a preliminary regression analysis was run with the ve dimensions of personality

Table III. Study 2: Intercorrelations Among Measures

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Extroversion
2. Agreeableness
0.25
3. Conscientiousness
0.31n 0.52nn
4. Emotional Stability 0.18
0.14 0.05
5. Openness
0.11 0.14 0.15 0.17
6. Self-Efcacy-Aggression 0.36n
0.39n
0.16 0.04nn 0.12
7. Outcome Value Control 0.21
0.27
0.04 0.15
0.16 0.51nn
8. Value of Suffering 0.71
0.47nn
0.10 0.27+ 0.02 0.74nn 0.41nn
9. Expectancy of Reward 0.31n
0.31n 0.06 0.23
0.19 0.55nn 0.68nn 0.57nn
10. Expectancy of Suffering
0.08
0.08 0.12 0.00
0.07 0.04 0.33n 0.17 0.41nn
11. Peer-Report Aggression 0.31n
0.49nn
0.32n 0.47nn
0.15 0.37nn 0.30n
0.48nn
0.12 0.15

Note: +po.10; npo0.5; nn

po0.1; N = 42 participants
54 Gleason et al.

entered as predictor variables. The ve dimensions of personality accounted for 45.4% of the
variance. Agreeableness was negatively and uniquely associated with peer reports of
aggression t(36) =
2.15, po.04, sr =
0.27.
Next, we examined whether sex of participant moderated the link between personality and
peer reports of aggression given that previous research has found that there are sex
differences in the use of direct aggression. Agreeableness was centered and entered into the
equation [Aiken and West, 1991]. In addition, sex of participant and the sex X agreeableness
cross-product was entered. Agreeableness still predicted peer reports of aggression,
t(38) =
2.22, sr =
.29. In addition, sex of participant predicted peer reports of aggression,
t(38) =
2.45, po.02, sr =
.32. Boys were more likely to be nominated by peers for using
direct aggression than were girls. There was no evidence, however, that sex of participant
moderated the relation between agreeableness and peer reports of aggression, t(38)o 1.14,
sr = .15, ns. As in Study 1, agreeableness directly predicted aggression and this relation was
not moderated by the sex of the participant. We again removed items on the agreeableness
scale that could potentially be seen as overlapping with aggression items, inating the
correlation among measures (kind-unkind, cooperative-uncooperative, polite-impolite,
considerate-inconsiderate, and agreeable-quarrelsome). Our new agreeableness composite
was still associated with peer reports of aggression after controlling for the other four
dimensions, b =
.28, t =
2.13, po .04. We also examined whether non-overlapping items
predicted aggression after controlling for the overlapping items following the same
procedures described in Study 1. The non-overlapping items still bore signicant independent
associations with aggression (DF = 2.32, po .05, D R2 = 20.5%).

Hypothesis 2: Does Agreeableness predict Aggressive Social Cognitions?

Agreeableness may exert its inuence through the use of social cognitive processes to
contextualize strategies and motive systems. One way this could occur is through inhibition of
aggression-encouraging thoughts. For example, the motive to maintain harmonious relations
with others, and to minimize interpersonal conicts would be incongruent with social cognitions
in which the adolescent would desire or would not be concerned by the use of aggression.
To examine these hypotheses, iterative sets of regression analyses were run (with each
aggressive social cognition as the criterion), in which sex and grade were entered as control
variables on the rst step and the ve dimensions of personality were entered on the second
step. As predicted, agreeableness was negatively related to the outcome value of victim
suffering, t(32) =
2.63, p = .01, sr =
.34. In other words, high agreeable adolescents were
more concerned by the use of aggression than were low agreeable adolescents. In addition,
agreeableness predicted expectations that the aggression would be successful, t(32) =
2.12,
po.05, sr =
.30. Low agreeable adolescents expected direct aggression to be more
successful than did high agreeable adolescents. There was no evidence that agreeableness
uniquely predicted the overall expectancy of the victim suffering, how competent he/she was
at aggression, or in the value he/she placed on the reward that would be received from an
aggressive act, ts(32)o
1.45, ns (See Table IV).

Hypothesis 3: Do Social Cognitions predict the Link between Agreeableness and

Aggression?
We examined the possibility that aggression-encouraging cognitions at least partially
mediated the link between agreeableness and peer reports of aggression. Following
 Agreeableness and Aggression 55

Table IV. Study 2 : Relation (b) of Each Personality Dimension to Aggerssive Social Cognitions
Criterion Measures

Expectancy Self-efcacy
of Reward Value of Value of for
Suffering Expectancy Suffering Reward Aggression

Multiple R2 0.07 0.35 0.47 0.28 0.58

Contribution
of Measures b t-value b t-value b t-value b t-value b t-value

Sex of
0.11
0.52
0.08
0.47
0.44
2.84n
0.19
1.03
0.56
4.62n
Participant
Grade of 0.10 0.55 0.21 1.33 0.10 0.67 0.30 1.847 0.17 1.49
Participant
Extraversion 0.06 0.28 0.32 2.01n 0.19 1.25 0.19 1.12 0.42 3.62n
Agreeableness
0.16
0.77
0.37
2.12n
0.42
2.63n
0.26
1.37
0.19
1.45
Conscien- 0.22 1.01 0.33 1.847 0.21 1.30 0.12 0.62 0.07 0.55
tiousness
Emotional
0.06
0.33 0.11 0.71 0.03 0.23 0.05 0.32 0.12 0.99
Stability
Openness to
0.06
0.31
0.18
1.26 0.03 0.22
0.16
1.03 0.12 1.08
Experience

Note: +po10; npo.05; N = 42 participants

procedures outlined by Baron and Kenny [1986], we regressed aggression on agreeableness

(Hypothesis 1). Second, we regressed social cognitions on agreeableness (Hypothesis 2).
We then regressed peer-reported aggression on both agreeableness and each one of the
social cognitions individually (Hypothesis 3). We found that our set of aggression-
encouraging cognitions did not mediate the link between agreeableness and aggression
(See Table V).

Hypothesis 4: Does Aggression Mediate the Link Between Agreeableness and

Adjustment?
Finally, we examined the possibility that the link between agreeableness and teacher
reports of adjustment is mediated through behaviors associated with direct aggression.
Personality may exert its inuence on adolescent adjustment interpersonally through
processes of accommodations to others. Following procedures outlined by Baron and Kenny
[1986], we regressed aggression on agreeableness. Agreeableness positively predicted
peer-reported aggression, t(40) =
3.55, po.01, b =
0.49. Second, we regressed teacher-
reported adjustment on agreeableness. Agreeableness also positively predicted teacher-
reported adjustment, t(40) = 2.11, po.04, b = 0.32. Finally, we regressed teacher-rated
adjustment on both agreeableness and Aggression. Aggression was negatively related to
teacher-rated adjustment, t(39) =
2.43, p = .02, b =
0.39. Agreeableness no longer
uniquely predicted teacher-rated adjustment, t(39) = .76, ns, b = 0.12, sr = .11. In sum, we
met all of the criteria for mediation: agreeableness predicted aggression; agreeableness
predicted teacher-rated adjustment; and with agreeableness controlled for, aggression
predicted adjustment. Moreover, perfect mediation held because when aggression was
56 Gleason et al.

Table V. Betas and Semi-Partial Correlations Between Agreeableness and Aggression Controlling for
Social Cognitions
Aggression

Betas Semi-partial Correlations

nn
Agreeableness (no Control)
0.49
0.49nn
Agreeableness Controlling for:
Self-Efcacy for Aggression
0.42nn
0.38nn
Expectation for Reward
0.51nn
0.48nn
Expectation for Victim Suffering
0.53nn
0.53nn
Value of Reward
0.45nn
0.43nn
Value of Victim Suffering
0.38nn
0.33n

Note: npo.05; nn
po.01; N = 42 participant

Figure 2.

controlled for, agreeableness no longer was associated with teacher-rated adjustment.

Overall, we found that the link between agreeableness and adjustment was mediated by peer
reports of direct aggression (See Figure 2)2.

DISCUSSION
This research used a multi-method approach to link the personality dimension of
agreeableness to aggression in early adolescence. The research focused on agreeableness
because this dimension is associated with motives to maintain positive interpersonal relations
and temperamental origins in effortful control. In Study 1, we assessed the relation between
agreeableness and self-reported direct and indirect aggression. Following the logic that, given
their concern for interpersonal relations and better self-regulation, agreeable children may be
less likely to aggress against their peers. Thus, we expected that agreeableness would be
negatively related to self-reported use of aggression in Study 1. In addition, we anticipated
that the link between agreeableness and aggression would be strongest for direct forms of
aggression rather than for indirect forms. In Study 2, we examined the relations between
agreeableness, social cognitions associated with aggression, and peer reports of direct
aggression. We anticipated that agreeable adolescents should report less aggression-
2
Nearly identical results were produced using path analysis in EQS. That analysis is not reported here due to
concerns about adequate sample size. Kline [1998] recommended 10 times as many cases as parameter (or ideally
20 times). We would have needed a sample of 60120 participants, and we only had 47. He further states that 5 times
or less is insufcient for signicance testing of model effects.
 Agreeableness and Aggression 57

encouraging thoughts given their motivation to maintain positive relations with others. We
also expected that agreeableness would be uniquely and negatively related to direct
aggression. Moreover, we examined the possibility that the link between agreeableness and
teacher reports of adjustment was at least partially mediated by the use of coercive tactics
(i.e., direct aggression).
The overall pattern of ndings supports the notion that agreeableness is predictive of
aggressive behaviors in at least three ways. First, agreeableness was negatively related to self
reports and peer reports of aggression. Second, agreeableness was negatively related to
aggressive social cognitions. However, the link between agreeableness and direct aggression
was not mediated by these social cognitions. Previous research on aggression has focused
primarily on cognitive mechanisms that mediate aggressive behavior, in particular social-
information processing [Bandura, 1973, 1986; Dodge, 1986; Egan et al., 1998]. Another
equally important mechanism may be self-regulation, specically the regulation of anger.
Graham et al., [1992] found that perceptions of intent of the other person do predict anger,
and anger was a better predictor of childrens preferred behavioral responses than were
attributions of intent. Recent research supports this contention. For example, Harmon-Jones
and Sigelman [2000] found that left prefrontal cortical activity is associated with state-
induced anger, which in turn predicted aggression.
It seems likely that the signicance of agreeableness for successful peer relations lies in its
association with specic social-interactional and emotional self-regulatory processes that
warrant attention in future research. Observations of the actual social exchanges of children
and adults varying in agreeableness in structured and unstructured settings might permit
identication of the specic social responses they exhibit (e.g., tendency to avoid negative
social exchanges, prosocial tendencies, the tendency to control anger, positive moods) that
mediate the use of aggression. It would also be worthwhile to determine whether agreeable
persons have more positive attitudes toward their peers, whether the other children
reciprocate their favorable attitudes, and whether these social-interactional processes help
account for the childrens ability to regulate their use of aggression.
Third, the link between agreeableness and adjustment was mediated by aggressive
behaviors in our study. It is possible that the disposition of agreeableness exerts its inuence
through emergent strategies and goals. Little is known about the ways that personality
moderates childrens adaptations to their social environments. Our results suggest that the
agreeableness-adjustment link is at least partially mediated by patterns of social exchanges
[Finch and Graziano, 2001; Finch et al., 1999].
Finally, individual differences in aggression as a function of agreeableness suggest that it
would be worthwhile to devote additional research attention to the root causes of
agreeableness. Effortful control is believed to provide the basic biological core for the
later development of emergent adult agreeableness. Even with temperamental origins in
effortful control, agreeableness appears to be the most socialized of the Big Five [Bergeman
et al., 1993; Kohnstamm et al., 1998]. Given that agreeableness appears to be a combination
of both the individuals biological heritage and socialization processes, low agreeableness
may also be one developmental product of less normative socialization [e.g., Crick and
Grotpeter, 1995; Egan and Perry, 1998; Finnegan et al., 1998; cf., Henington et al., 1998;
Paulhus and John, 1998]. For example, parents of congenitally low-agreeable children
may foster the non-normative belief that coercive tactics (i.e., poor social skills) are
effective means for resolving conict, or they may foster the belief that coercive tactics elicit
respect from peers. This would be problematic, because coercive tactics lead to poor peer
58 Gleason et al.

relations [Crick and Grotpeter, 1995; Henington et al., 1998; Jensen-Campbell and Graziano,
2001; Perry, et al., 1992].
Certain strengths and limitations of the present research warrant comment. Strengths
include (a) the assessment of personality, aggression, and adjustment using independent sets
of respondents in Study 2, (b) using multiple indices of aggression in Study 1, and (c)
replicating the agreeableness-aggression link across two independent studies. Considered
together, these features lend condence to the conclusion that agreeableness is important in
adolescents peer relations and adjustment. Limitations of the research include: (a) the small
sample size of both studies; (b) the use of only direct aggression in the second study.
Adolescents can use different types of aggression (e.g., direct versus indirect aggression), and
the role of agreeableness and social cognitions in aggression may depend on the nature of the
aggression under study; (c) the use of only self-report measures in Study 1, and (d) relying
solely on self-efcacy and outcome expectancies as social cognitions in Study 2. Children
have been found to use other aggression-supporting cognitions (e.g., hostile attribution
biases, normative beliefs about aggression) and the relation of agreeableness to aggression
may also depend on the social cognitions under study. Even with these limitations, the
outcomes of these studies suggest that an approach including agreeableness may inform our
understanding of not only personality structure, but also peer relations and adjustment at a
time when individuals are going through a major developmental transition.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are especially grateful to David G. Perry for sharing his data on aggression that was
collected as part of Study 2. We thank Ryan Adams, Sherrie Shavett, Sherri Rossell, and
Steven Bart who provided help in completing the data collection. We also thank William G.
Graziano and Shaun D. Campbell for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

REFERENCES
Ahadi SA, Rothbart MK. 1994. Temperament, devel-
opment, and the Big Five. In: Halverson CF,
Kohnstamm GA, Martin RP, editors. The develop-
ing structure of temperament and personality
from infancy to adulthood. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
p 189208.
Aiken LS, West SG. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing
and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Asher SR, Coie JD. 1990. Peer rejection in childhood.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura A. 1973. Aggression: A social learning analysis.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and
action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baron RM, Kenny DA. 1986. The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
J Pers Soc Psychol 51:11731182.
Bergeman CS, Chipuer H, Plomin R, Pedersen NL,
McClearn GE, Nesselroade JR, Costa PT, McCrae
RR. 1993. Genetic and environmental effect on
openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscien-
tiousness: An adoption/twin study. J Pers 61:
159180.
Berkowitz L. 1968. The frustration-aggression hypoth-
esis revisited. In: Berkowitz L, editor. Roots of
aggression: A re-examination of the frustration-
aggression hypothesis. New York: Atherton.
Boldizar JP, Perry DG, Perry LC. 1989. Outcome values
and aggression. Child Dev 60: 571579.
Bovin M, Begin G. 1989. Peer status and self-perception
among elementary school children: The Case of
rejected children. Child Dev 60: 591596.
Briggs SR. 1989. The optimal level of measurement of
personality constructs. In: Buss DM, Cantor N,
editors. Personality psychology: Recent trends
and emerging directions New York: Springer.
p 246260.

Briggs SR. 1992. Assessing the ve-factor model of
personality description. J Pers 60: 253294.
Buss AH, Plomin R. 1984. Temperament: Early devel-
oping personality traits. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Caspi A, Moft TE. 1993. When do individual
differences matter? A paradoxical theory of person-
ality coherence. Psychological Inquiry 4: 247271.
Colvin CR. 1993. Judgable people: Personality, Graham S, Hudley C, Williams E. 1992. Attributions
behavior, and competing explanations. J Pers Soc
Psychol 64: 861873.
Crick NR, Casas JF, Mosher M. 1997. Relational
and overt aggression in preschool. Dev Psychol
33:579588.
Crick N R, Grotpeter JK. 1995. Relational aggression,
gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child
Dev 66:710722.
Departments of Education and Justice. 1998. Annual
report on school safety. [on-line] Available: http://
www.ed.gov/pubs/AnnSchoolRept98/stloc.html.
Digman JM, Takemoto-Chock NK. 1981. Factors in the
natural language of personality: Re-analysis and
comparison of six major studies. Multivariate
Behavioral Research 16: 149170.
Dodge KA. 1986. A social information processing model
of social competence in children. In: Perlmutter M,
editor. Minnesota symposia on child psychology.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. p 77125.
Dodge KA, Petti GS, McClaskey CL, Brown MM.
1986. Social competence in children. Monogr Soc
Res Child Dev 51:185.
Eccles JS, Wigeld A, Flanagan CA, Miller C. 1989.
Self-concepts, domain values, and self-esteem: Rela-
tions and changes at early adolescence. J Pers Special
Issue: Long-term stability and change in personality.
57:283310.
Egan SK, Monson TC, Perry DG. 1998. Social-cognitive
inuences on change in aggression over time. Dev
Psychol 34:9961006.
Egan SK, Perry DG. 1998. Does low self-regard invite
victimization? Dev Psychol 34: 299309.
Elphick E, Halverson CF, Marzal-Wisniewska M. 1998.
Extraversion: Toward a unifying description from
infancy to adulthood. In: Kohnstamm GA, Halver-
son CF, Jr., Mervielde I, Havill VL, editors. Parental
descriptions of child personality? Developmental
antecedents of the Big Five? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
p 2148.
Finch JF, Graziano WG. 2001. Predicting depression
from temperament, personality, and patterns of
social relations. J Pers 69:2755.
Finch JF, Okun MA, Pool GJ, Ruehlman LS. 1999. A
comparison of the inuence of social undermining
and social support on psychological distress. J Pers
67: 581622.
Finnegan RA, Hodges EVE, Perry DG. 1998. Victimi-
zation by peers: Associations with childrens reports
Agreeableness and Aggression 59
of mother-child interaction. J Pers Soc Psychol
75:10761086.
French DC. 1988. Heterogeneity of peer-rejected boys:
Aggressive and nonaggressive subtypes. Child Dev
59:976985.
Goldberg LR. 1992. The development of markers of the
Big Five factor structure. Psychol Assess 4:2642.
and emotional determinants of aggression among
African-American and Latino young adolescents.
Dev Psychol 28: 731704.
Graziano WG. 2003. Surprising cross-cultural simila-
rities in parents spontaneous descriptions of their
children. Contemporary Psychology. in press.
Graziano WG. 1994. The development of agreeableness
as a dimension of personality. In: Halverson, Jr. CF,
Kohnstamm GA, Martin RP, editors. The develop-
ing structure of temperament and personality from
infancy to adulthood. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates. p 339354.
Graziano WG, Eisenberg N. 1997. Agreeableness: A
dimension of personality. In: Hogan J, Johnson J,
Briggs S, editors. Handbook of personality psychol-
ogy. San Diego: Academic Press. p 795824.
Graziano WG, Hair EC, Finch JF. 1997. Competitive-
ness mediates the link between personality and group
performance. J Pers Soc Psychol 73:13941408.
Graziano WG, Jensen-Campbell LA, Finch JC. 1997.
The self as a mediator between personality and
adjustment. J Pers Soc Psychol 73:392404.
Graziano WG, Jensen-Campbell LA, Hair EC. 1996.
Perceiving interpersonal conict and reacting to it:
The case for agreeableness. J Pers Soc Psychol
70:820835.
Graziano WG, Jensen-Campbell LA, Steele RG, Hair
EC. 1998. Unknown words in self-reported person-
ality: Lethargic and provincial in Texas. Pers Soc
Psychol Bull 24: 893905.
Graziano WG, Jensen-Campbell LA, Sullivan-Logan
GM. 1998. Temperament, activity, and expectations
for later personality development. J Pers Soc Psychol
74:12661277.
Graziano WG, Ward D. 1992. Probing the Big Five in
adolescence: Personality and adjustment during
developmental transition. J Pers 60: 425435.
Green L, Richardson DR, Lago T. 1996. Social network
density and aggression: How do friendship, gossip,
and aggression relate? Aggress Behav 22: 8186.
Harmon-Jone E, Sigelman JD. 2000. State anger and
prefrontal brain activity: Evidence that insult-related
relative left prefrontal activation is associated with
experienced anger and aggression. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Society for Psychophysio-
logical Research. San Diego, California.
Harter S. 1983. Developmental perspectives of the self-
system. In: Mussen PH, Series Editor, Hetherington
60 Gleason et al.
EM, Volume Editor. Handbook of child psycho-
logy. Vol. 4: Socialization, personality and social
development, 4th edition. New York: Wiley.
p 275385.
Henington C, Hughes JN, Cavell TA, Thompson B.
1998. The role of relational aggression in identifying
aggressive boys and girls. J School Psychol 36:
457477.
Hogan RT. 1983. A socioanalytic theory of personality.
In: Page M, editor. Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation: Personality Current theory and
research. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
p 5889.
Ickes W. 1982. A basic paradigm for the study of
personality, roles, and social behavior. In: Ickes W,
Knowles ES, editors. Personality, roles, and social
behavior New York: Springer-Verlag. p 305341.
Jensen-Campbell LA, Graziano WG. 2001. Agreeable-
ness as a moderator of interpersonal conict. J Pers
69:323362.
Jensen-Campbell LA, Graziano WG, Hair EC. 1996.
Personality and relationships as moderators of
interpersonal conict in adolescence. Merrill-Palmer
Q 42:148164.
John OP, Donahue EM, Kentle R. 1991. The Big-Five
Inventory Versions 4a and 54. Technical Report,
Institute of Personality and Social Research, Uni-
versity of California, Berkeley, CA.
Kline RB. 1998. Principles and practice of structural
equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Kochanska G, Murray KT, Harlan ET. 2000. Effortful
control in early childhood: Continuity and change,
antecedents, and implications for social develop-
ment. Dev Psychol 36:220232.
Kohnstamm G, Halverson CF, Mervielde I, Havill V.
1998. Parental description of child personality:
Developmental antecedents of the Big Five? Mah-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kupersmidt JB, Coie JD. 1990. Preadolescent peer
status, aggression, and school adjustment as pre-
dictors of externalizing problems in adolescence.
Child Dev 61:13501362.
Larson RW, Richards MH. 1994. Family emotions: Do
young adolescents and their parents experience the
same states? J Res Adolesc Special Issue: Affective
processes in adolescence. 4:567583.
McAdams DP. 1995. What do we know when we know
a person? J Pers 63:365396.
Paulhus DL, John OP. 1998. Egoistic and moralistic
biases in self-perception:The interplay of self-decep-
tive styles with basic traits and motives. J Pers
66:10251060.
Parkhurst JT, Asher S. 1992. Peer rejection in middle
school: Subgroup differences in behavior, lone-
liness, and interpersonal concerns. Dev Psychol
28:231241.
Pedhazur EJ. 1997. Multiple regression in behavioral
research (3rd Edition). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt
Brace.
Pellegrini AD. 2001. Sampling instances of victimization
in middle school. In: Juvonen J, Graham SH, editors.
Peer harassment: The plight of the vulnerable and
victimized. New York: Guilford Press. p 125144.
Perry DG, Perry LC, Boldizar JP. 1990. Learning of
aggression. In: Lewis M, Miller S, editors. Hand-
book of developmental psychopathology. New York:
Plenum. p 135146.
Perry DG, Perry LC, Kennedy E. 1992. Conict and the
development of antisocial behavior. In: Shantz CU,
Hartup WW, editors. Conict in child and adoles-
cent development. New York: Cambridge University
Press. p 301329.
Perry DG, Perry LC, Rasmussen P. 1986. Cognitive and
social learning mediators of aggression. Child Dev
57:700711.
Perry DG, Willard JC, Perry LC. 1990. Peers percep-
tions of the consequences that victimized children
provide aggressors. Child Dev 61:13101325.
Richardson DR. 1999. Aggression. In: Derlega VJ,
Winstead BA, Jones WH, editors. Personality:
Contemporary theory and research, 2nd edition.
Chicago: Nelson-Hall. p 458488.
Richardson DR, Green LR. 1999. Social sanction and
threat explanations of gender effects on direct and
indirect aggression. Aggress Behav 25:425434.
Richardson DR, Green LR. 1997. Circuitous harm:
Determinants and consequences of nondirect aggres-
sion. In: Kowalski R, editor. Aversive interpersonal
behaviors. New York: Plenum.
Robins WR, John OP, Caspi A. 1994. Major dimensions
of personality in early adolescence: The big ve and
beyond. In: Halverson CF, Kohnstamm GA, Martin
RP, editors. The developing structure of tempe-
rament and personality from infancy to adult-
hood. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
p 267291.
Rothbart MK, Bates J. 1998. Temperament. In: Damon
W, Series Editor, and Eisenberg N, Volume Editor.
Handbook of child psychology: Vol 3. Social,
emotional, and personality development (5th ed.,
New York: Wiley. p 105176.
Rothbart MK, Posner MI. 1985. Temperament and the
development of self-regulation. In Hartlage LC,
Telzrow CF, editors. The neuropsychology of
individual differences: A developmental perspective.
New York: Plenum. p 93123.
Simmons RG, Blythe DA. 1987. Moving into adoles-
cence: The impact of pubertal change and school
context. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Slaby RG, Guerra NG. 1988. Cognitive mediators of
aggression in adolescent offenders: I. Assessment.
Dev Psychol 24:580588.

Tobin RM, Graziano WG, Vanman E, Tassinary LG.
2000. Personality, emotional experience, and efforts
to control emotions. J Pers Soc Psychol 79:656669.
Walker S, Richardson DR. 1998. Aggression strategies
among older adults: Delivered but not seen. Aggress
Viol Behav 3:287294.
Walker S, Richardson DR, Green LR. 2000. Aggression
among older adults: The relationship of interaction
Agreeableness and Aggression 61
networks and gender role to direct and indirect
responses. Aggress Behav 26:145154.
Wiggins JS, Winder CL. 1961. The Peer Nomination
Inventory: An empirically derived sociometric mea-
sure of adjustment in preadolescent boys. Psychol
Rep 9:643677.
Zillman D. 1988. Cognition-excitation interdepencies in
aggressive behavior. Aggress Behav 14:5164.