European Journal of Personality, Vol.

10, 133-155 (1996)

Understanding the Complexity of Human Aggression:

Affective, Cognitive, and Social Dimensions of
Individual Differences in Propensity Toward Aggression

GIAN VlTTORlO CAPRARA”, CLAUD10 BARBARANELLI

University of Rome ’La Sapienza ’, Italy

and
PHILIP G. ZIMBARDO
Stanford University, USA

Abstract
Human aggression is a complex phenomenon operating at multiple levels. Converging
evidence distinguishes ‘hot’ aggression, impulsive and emotionally-centered, from ‘cool’
aggression, cognitively based and instrumental. The correspondence of these aggressive
response patterns with individual differences in Propensity toward Aggression was
investigated. Our data (from 477 Italian adults) map ten of these aggression indicators
into the personality space defined by the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality. The
quadrant containing most of these variables is defined by Emotional Instability (the
negative pole of Emotional Stability) and Hostility (the negative pole of Friendliness).
Factor analysis uncovered two factors that accounted for nearly 60 percent of the
variance in Propensity toward Aggression: Emotional Responsivity and Positive
Evaluation of Violence. Practical implications for issues of health and disease, violence,
and interventions f o r different forms of adults’ and children’s aggression are outlined.

INTRODUCTION

Attempts to understand human aggression at a ‘generic level’, as actions intended to

hurt someone, have been criticized as inadequate unless researchers distinguish
between different types of aggression and their distinctive determinants and
regulatory mechanisms (Bandura, 1986; 1991). Experimental research on human
aggression has been dominated by two competing orientations: the psychodynamic

*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gian Vittorio Caprara, Universita’ di
Roma ‘La Sapienza’, Dipartimento di Psicologia, Via dei Marsi 78, 00185 Roma, Italia. E-mail:
caprara@axrrna.uniromal .it.

CCC 0890-2070/96/020133-23 Accepted 12 April 1996

0 1996 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
134 G . V . Caprara et al.

and neo-associationist approaches versus the social-learning and social-cognitive

approaches. The former focus primarily on affective/motivational aspects of
aggression, emphasizing the importance of ‘impulsive aggression’, and paying
attention to the excitatory and involuntary processes instigating aggressive
responding (Berkowitz, 1989; 1993; Geen, 1990). The contrasting focus, on the
instrumental nature of aggression and the mechanisms responsible for the
acquisition and regulation of aggression, characterizes the social-learning and
social-cognitive views (Bandura, 1973; 1986).
Two other approaches to the study of aggression, and as divergent as the
emotional versus cognitive ones noted, are those represented by the personologists
and the experimental social psychologists. The personological approach itself has
several variants. The more traditional approach centers around personality traits as
largely inborn dispositions, that account for variations between people in aggressive
behavior (Buss and Plomin, 1984; Olweus, 1979). An alternate personological
perspective examines individual differences or personality dimensions as
hypothetical constructs or affective-cognitive structures that develop during
ontogenesis, and are assumed to mediate aggressive behavior (Caprara,
Barbaranelli and Comrey, 1992; Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli and Perugini,
1994; Caprara and Pastorelli, 1989). Although interest centers on the role of
personality characteristics in mediating the expression of aggressive behavior,
contemporary investigators hope to relate individual differences to environmental
events that elicit/inhibit/maintain aggressive behavior. After briefly outlining some
major features and contributions of these approaches, we will describe our research
program designed to explore individual differences in aggression by recognizing its
multi-dimensional character and the operation of affective as well as cognitive
processes in many forms of aggression. Finally, we will suggest ways to investigate
the interactions of person and situational variables in emotionally triggered
aggression and cognitively anchored aggression, while also describing practical
interventions for preventing or controlling aggression.
In this regard, some experimental social psychologists have asserted that the
analysis of aggression (and other socially important behaviors) has overly relied on
dispositional (personality) approaches while underplaying the power of situational
variables. Dramatic demonstrations of the ‘power of the situation’ have been used as
evidence that situations often matter more than one would predict. Moreover, in
such novel contexts, where prescribed roles constrain behavioral options, individual
differences play a minor role (Milgram, 1992; Zimbardo, 1972; 1979). It remains to
be demonstrated whether a more sensitive use of current assessment methods of
individual differences could enlighten the various processes underlying individual-
group or person-situation interactions. Alternatively, there may be some strong
behavior settings that are ‘alien’ to the usual functioning of most individuals and
thereby, minimize the role of individual differences in predicting their behavior.
The centerpiece of the frustration-aggression hypothesis (Dollard, Doob, Miller,
Mowrer and Sears, 1939) was the specification of motivational dynamics by which
blocked goals instigated retaliatory acts to remove them or their agents and
surrogates. Displaced aggression of the original impulse onto safer, or more readily
accessible, targets was also a contribution of this conception. From this early version
of an arousal theory of aggression came the concept of reactive--impulsive
aggression, introduced by Berkowitz (1974; 1989; 1993). His thinking spawned
 Personality in aggression 135

research that was directed toward examining the roles of excitatory and involuntary
processes in aggression that was automatic or reflexive. Recent contributions of
Berkowitz (1989) on aggression associative networks substantially translate into the
cognitive perspective previous intuitions on the role played by automatic
mechanisms in the dynamic of aggressive behavior.
A quite different tact was taken by Bandura (1973; 1986), who applied a social-
learning analysis, and more recently a social-cognitive approach, to aggression as
goal-directed, instrumental behavior. In this view, understanding proceeds not from
identifying more or less automatic associations between excitatory processes and
behavior, but rather from uncovering basic processes of learning and self-regulatory
mechanisms, on one hand, and situational determinants, that either facilitate
aggression or inhibit its expression, on the other.
These alternative conceptions of aggression have been designated by Geen (1990)
as affective and instrumental forms of aggression. Similarly, the social
developmental approach of Dodge and Coie (1987) mirrors this distinction with
theirs that compares reactive and proactive forms of aggression. The reactive form of
aggression is typically an immediate, impulsive, emotional response to feeling
provoked. In its instrumental form, aggression involves some degree of planning to
achieve a goal, thus is a more cognitively based aggressive means to an end, and
usually occurs over a longer time frame than the more spontaneous reactive
aggression.
It is apparent, then, that there is consensus about the operation and basic
characteristics of two different forms of aggression. Despite the seemingly clear
conceptual distinction between cognitive and affective aggression, that clarity is
challenged, when accounting for the actual interdependences of affect and cognition
in any given behavior analysis. Therefore, it is appropriate to posit that impulsive-
reactive aggression is more under the guidance of excitatory-automatic process,
while proactive aggression is more under the guidance of self regulatory-intentional
processes.
An interesting analogy to this two-factor model is found when one examines
research that relies on self-reported measures of aggression. Buss and Durkee (1 957)
reported two factors in their Hostility Inventory (BDHI). The first was defined by
the Resentment and Suspicious scales (with the addition of Guilt in women), and
constituted an Experience or Awareness factor. The second factor, Expression, was
primarily defined by Assault and Verbal Hostility. This two-factor structure has
been widely replicated (see e.g. Bending, 1962; Spielberger, Jacobs, Russell and
Crane, 1983). Subsequently, factor analysis of the BDHI scales uncovered two
dominant factors: (i) Neurotic Hostility and (ii) Reactive or Expressive Hostility
(Siegman, Dembroski and Ringel, 1987). The first factor reflected the experience of
anger and the tendency toward mistrust and resentment. It correlated with proneness
to experience anxiety, depression, and somatic symptoms. This more internally
centered form of aggression contrasts with the external nature of the reactive form of
hostility. This reactive aggression was unrelated to anxiety, reflecting instead the
tendency to argue with others, to verbally express angry feelings, and to physically
assault others, when provoked.
A three-component structure of aggression emerged from a recent factor analysis
of Buss and Perry’s (1992) Aggression Questionnaire. The instrumental or motor
component of behavior is Physical and Verbal Aggression, involving hurting and
136 G. V. Caprara et al.

harming others. The emotional or affective component of behavior is found in the

Anger component, involving physiological arousal and preparation for aggression.
Finally, the cognitive component of behavior is Hostility, involving feelings of ill will
and injustice.
While such correlational findings of the multi-dimensional nature of individual
differences in response to aggression self-report measures offer an interesting
correspondence to the multiple-modality conception of aggression from the
experimental literature, what are missing are efforts to bring specific individual
differences in aggression into the realm of a broader personality perspective.
Research from our laboratory has been directed toward bridging this gap. We, along
with others, have raised questions of the role personality characteristics play in
mediating aggressive behavior (see e.g. Dengerink, O’Leary and Kasner, 1975;
Malamuth, 1984; Olweus, 1978; 1980; 1984; Pitkanen-Pulkkinen, 1981).
At the core of our research program is the belief that the systematic study of
individual differences in aggression can refine the lens needed to focus on the basic
processes and mechanisms underlying the various forms of aggression that have been
uncovered by experimental research. Additionally, we believe that understanding the
interaction of personality and situational aspects of aggression will allow for more
precise and robust predictive power and will point more clearly to modes of
intervention. (For a review see Caprara, 1987; Caprara and Pastorelli, 1989;
Caprara, Perugini and Barbaranelli, 1994; Caprara et al., 1994b).
We have identified a triad of personality variables that are predictors of
aggression in the laboratory as well as in field settings in real life. These constructs
have appeared repeatedly in factor analyses of data collected in different countries
with diverse populations. They are Irritability, Hostile Rumination, and Tolerance
toward Violence. Irritability, defined as the tendency to react impulsively and
rudely to even a slight provocation or disagreement, emerged as a relevant
predictor of laboratory measures of aggressive behavior. This was especially so in a
series of studies conceived in the context of the Frustration-Aggression hypothesis
and its derivatives, when impulsive aggression played a major role, that is,
automatic and out-of-awareness forms of aggression (see Caprara, 1983; Caprara,
Cinanni, D’Imperio, Passerini, Renzi and Travaglia, 1985; Caprara, Renzi, Alcini,
D’Imperio and Travaglia, 1983; Caprara, Renzi, Amolini, D’Imperio and
Travaglia, 1984; Caprara, Renzi, D’Augello, D’Imperio, Rielli and Travaglia,
1986).
Hostile Rumination is the inclination toward prolonged rumination, increasing,
or at least maintaining, the desire to retaliate in some hostile manner following an
instigation (Caprara, 1986). This variable accounted for a significant portion of the
variance in aggressive behavior (in experiments analogous to those previously
mentioned) when cognitive processes, such as memory, attribution, and planning,
played a major role. Results from these investigations forced us to reexamine the
traditional dichotomy between forms of aggression by identifying the variance
accounted for by relatively more affective or more cognitive components of
aggression (Caprara, Gargaro, Pastorelli, Prezza, Renzi and Zelli, 1987).
Concerns over the multiple manifestations of violence in modern society impelled
us to develop an indicator of individual proneness toward violence. Tolerance
toward Violence is defined as a positive attitude toward justification of different
forms of violent conduct (Caprara, Cinanni and Mazzotti, 1989). Although this
 Personality in aggression 137

indicator was not included as a mediator variable in experimental designs, its

relation to aggression resulted from a high correlation with a measure of personal
involvement in violent acts (Caprara, Mazzotti and Prezza, 1990).
Two factors emerged from second-order factor analyses of these scales (on data
collected on both large samples of Italian adult subjects and U. S. college
students). These analyses included other indicators of individual differences
associated in various ways with aggression (such as Emotional Susceptibility and
Fear of Impending Punishment), as well as with antagonists of aggressive conduct
(such as Need of Reparation). The first factor was recognised as Emotional
Responsivity, based on its relationship to negative affectivity, while the second
factor was labelled Proneness to Aggression, based on its relationship to hostility
(Caprara, Manzy and Perugini, 1992; Caprara, Perugini, Pastorelli and
Barbaranelli, 1990). These two second-order dimensions were confirmed
independently in factorial studies that included markers of broad personality
factors, such as those described by the Comrey Personality Scales (CPSs; Comrey,
1970; 1980; 1995), and by the Five Factor Model (FFM; Goldberg, 1993; McCrae
and John, 1992) of personality traits (Caprara et al., 1992; Caprara, Perugini,
Barbaranelli and Pastorelli, 1993).
Thus we may conclude that a provocative correspondence appears to have
emerged recently that two different forms of aggression exist. The validity of this
generalization comes from such diverse fields of research as experimental studies of
aggression, correlational research on self-reported measures of aggression, and
personality dimensions of aggression.

Focus of the present study

Our objective here is twofold: first, to examine the latent structure stemming from a
conjoint analysis of a host of well established indicators of disposition to aggression;
second, to ‘map’ such indicators of disposition to aggression, as well as their higher-
order latent components, into the personality space defined by the FFM of
personality traits. We have undertaken this research fully sensitive to the duality of
aggression, which can be affectively charged, impulsive, reactive, and involuntary,
but also can take the form of the cognitively regulated, instrumental, proactive,
intentional, voluntary, goal-directed, and cold-blooded form of interpersonal
hostility.
We believe that the utility of an individual differences approach lies in
discovering the regularities and generalities in a person’s responses to given
stimuli in particular situations. Using these relatively stable differences between
individuals, researchers are able to predict behavior patterns and to offer
intervention strategies designed to modify outcomes. This approach conceives of
personality traits as constructions that develop during ontogenesis to mediate
both affective and cognitive interactions between the person and the environment.
In this regard the systematic study of individual differences is no longer divorced
from the study of external situational variables. Rather, it aims to encompass
both the study of internal mechanisms and the study of relevant ‘environmental’
variables that operate at stimulus, social, context, structural, and cultural levels to
influence individual and group behavior.
138 G . V . Caprara et al.

METHOD

Participants
Participants in this study were 534 adult subjects, with a mean age of 34.9 years
(SD=7.6); 268 were male (mean age, 34.8 years; SD=7.6), while 266 were female
(mean age, 35.0 years; SD = 7.5). All subjects were well educated, middle-class
Italians. In some analyses, sample size was reduced due to list-wise deletions of cases
with missing data, as indicated in each data table.

Scales administered
Each person was individually administered a battery of the following scales.

(i) The Irritability ( I ) scale measures the tendency to react impulsively,

controversially, or rudely at the slightest provocation or disagreement. It
consists of 30 items (20 effective, ten control), such as, ‘I think I am rather
touchy’, and ‘Sometimes I shout, hit, kick, and let off steam’.
(ii) The Hostile Rumination ( H R ) scale measures the tendency to maintain or even
increase the desire for vengeance, in opposition to the tendency to quickly
recover from ill feelings or desires to retaliate. It consists of 20 items (15
effective, five control), such as, ‘It takes many years for me to get rid of a
grudge’, and ‘I do not forgive easily once I am offended’.
(iii) The Tolerance toward Violence ( T V ) scale measures the individual proneness
toward the justification of different kinds of violence (violence with ideological
and political connotations, violence against people and their property,
apparently gratuitous violence for its own sake). It contains 29 items (26
effective, three control), such as ‘Since society is basically violent it does not
make any sense to punish the single individual who resorts to violence’, and
‘Today there are many more reasons to resort to violence than in the past’.

This first set of aggression scales was answered on six-point self-report measures,
ranging from 1 (completelyfalse for me), to 7 (completely true for me), excluding the
intermediate position. Different response options were available for each of the
remaining scales, as noted after each description below.

(iv) The Aggression Questionnaire (AQ; Buss and Perry, 1992) was developed as a
revised version of the Buss and Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI; Buss and
Durkee, 1957). It contains 29 statements arranged in four subscales: Physical
Aggression (nine items), Verbal Aggression (five items), Anger (seven items),
and Hostility (eight items). Each item was rated on a scale of 1 (extremely
uncharacteristic of me) to 5 (extremely characteristic of me).
(v) The Trait Anger Scale (TAS; Spielberger et al., 1983) is a rationally and
empirically derived self-report, ten-item scale that assesses how frequently an
individual experiences anger. Individual items were scored on four-point
scales, with alternatives ranging from almost never to almost always.
(vi) The Anger Out Scale (AO; Spielberger, Johnson, Russell, Crane, Jacobs and
Worden, 1985) is a rationally and empirically derived self-report eight-item
 Personality in aggression 139

scale, that assesses the tendency to express anger outwardly. Individual items
were scored on a five-point scale, ranging from almost never to almost always.
(vii) The Moral Disengagement Scale ( M D ; Bandura, 1986) measures eight
cognitive mechanisms that operate to alleviate the experience of blame
associated with the violation of internalized norms: moral justification,
distortion of consequences, diffusion of responsibility, displacement of
responsibility, euphemistic labelling, dehumanization of victims,
advantageous comparisons, and attribution of blame. The scale consists of
32 statements developed according to the eight mechanisms listed above (see
Caprara, Barbaranelli, Vicino and Bandura, 1996) rated on five-point scales,
ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Factor analyses of these
items showed a clear mono-dimensional structure; Cronbach’s alpha was
about 0.90. Accordingly, a total score on Moral Disengagement was obtained
by simply summing the 32 scale items.
(viii) The Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ) is a new questionnaire developed to assess
the FFM of personality traits (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni and Perugini,
1993; 1994). Because of its newness, we will detail here some of its
psychometric properties and validated features.

A number of review papers have shown the value of the FFM in the lexical
approach (Caprara and Perugini, 1991; Digman, 1990; John, 1990; John, Angleitner
and Ostendorf, 1988; McCrae and John, 1992; Wiggins and Pincus, 1992). The same
factors, or alternate versions of them, emerged from the analysis of trait terms
(adjectives or nouns) taken from the dictionary, across variations in procedures of
evaluation (self-report versus ratings), techniques of factor extraction and rotation,
sample characteristics (sex, age), countries and languages (e.g. USA, Germany, The
Netherlands, Italy, Taiwan). These five factors were identified as 1, Extraversion/
Introversion or Surgency; 11, Agreeableness or Friendliness/Hostility; 111,
Conscientiousness or Will; N ,Neuroticism/Emotional Stability; V, Intellect or
Openness to Experience.
These same five factors appear when phrases contained in inventories are used to
assess personality (Ostendorf and Angleitner, 1992). Results of conjoint or singular
factor analyses of established questionnaires, such as Cattell’s 16PF, Eysenck’s EPQ,
Comrey’s CPS, and others, have been interpreted as supporting the FFM (Boyle,
1989; Krug and Johns, 1986; McCrae, 1989; McCrae and Costa, 1985). As noted by
McCrae and Costa (1989) the FFM is a framework for interpreting the other
personality systems and their dimensions. If the Big Five are not the only broad
factors of personality, at least they are the most recurrent, and could then provide a
common language and a framework for orienting research and assessment in
personality psychology.
It is important to clarify (as suggested by an anonymous referee) that among the
supporters of the FFM there are important differences. In this regard Goldberg and
Saucier (1994) posited that the literature on the five factors reveals at least two
different conceptions. In the psycholexical tradition the so called ‘Big Five’ are
considered as a framework structure for the taxonomy of phenotypical traits of
personality (see Goldberg, 1993). Within the framework of the questionnaire
approach the five factors are considered as a model of genotypical traits of
personality (see McCrae and Costa, 1985). Within this approach the five factors are
140 G . V . Caprara et al.

considered as causal determinants of individual differences, basical endogenous

tendencies that have a strong basis in the genes and that shape thoughts, feelings,
and actions of people. Within the psycho-lexical approach the five factors have a less
ambitious and foundamentally descriptive goal: in fact they serve to organize the
thousands of terms that, in the different languages, are used for describing
personality (see Ostendorf and Angleitner, 1994).
Compared to the other major instrument for assessing the FFM in the domain of
personality questionnaires, the NEO-PI (Costa and McCrae, 1985; Costa, McCrae
and Dye, 1991), the BFQ is more parsimonious in the number of facets referred to
for each primary dimension (two instead of six for each dimension), and in the total
number of items (132 instead of 240). The BFQ shows also a major difference with
the NEO-PI in the first dimension, which has been named ‘Energy’ in the BFQ, while
in the NEO-PI it is ‘Extraversion’. Although the two dimensions are highly
correlated (see Table l), in using the label ‘Energy’ we intended to stress the aspects
related to activity, dynamism, and potency, which are at the core of the first of the
Big Five factors, but are not fully conveyed by the term ‘Extraversion”.
The definitions of the principal dimensions of the BFQ and their facets are as
follows.

(i) The dimension Energy ( E ) refers to those characteristics that in the literature
are referred to as Extraversion (McCrae and Costa, 1987), or as Surgency
(Norman, 1963). This dimension is organized into the following two facets:
‘Dynamism’, which refers to activity and enthusiasm, and ‘Dominance’, which
refers to assertiveness and self-confidence.
(ii) The dimension Friendliness ( F ) refers to the factor that is usually labelled as
Agreeableness (McCrae and Costa, 1987) or Friendliness versus Hostility
(Digman, 1990). This dimension is organized into the following facets:
‘Cooperativeness/Empathy’, which refers to concern and sensitivity towards
others and their needs, and ‘Politeness’, which refers to kindness, civility,
docility, and trust.
(iii) The dimension Conscientiousness ( C ) refers to self-regulation in commitments
and achievement (Digman, 1990; McCrae and Costa, 1989). This dimension is
organized into the following facets: ‘Scrupulousness’, which refers to

‘Although the more recurrent label for the first factor of the Big Five has been ‘Extraversion’, we preferred
to use the label of ‘Energy’. This was not a mere nominal matter. In our opinion, the label ‘Energy’ seems
to be a more appropriate definition considering the ambiguity carried by the term Extraversion. Often this
label implies a conception of Factor I that overestimates the interpersonal dimension and runs the risk of
overlap with Factor I1 (Agreeableness), while underestimating the important component of activity or
energy which other systems have rightly underscored (Buss and Plomin, 1984; Comrey, 1980; Guilford,
1975; Hogan, 1986; Strelau, 1983; Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Thornquist and Kiers, 1991). Whereas
Extraversion could be fully defensible in a two- or three-factor system, as the Eysenckian one (Eysenck,
1990), it introduces in the FFM a kind of redundancy to the interpersonal dimension while shadowing
important aspects which are not elsewhere rescued. We also believe that, in the domain of self report,
personality dimensions tend to subsume temperamental dimensions. As a consequence, a five-factor model
that includes the two main dimensions that recur in practically all temperamental systems ( i s . Activity and
Emotionality) undoubtedly gains in comprehensiveness. One may question the value of using a term such
as ‘energy’ which is so loaded by dubious meanings in the biological and psychological literature.
However, we think that is a matter of linguistic or cultural convenience to use the label ‘Energy’ or
‘Activity’ to name Factor I of the Big Five. Whereas in Italian ‘Energy’ is fine, in English ‘Activity’ may be
preferable.
 Personality in aggression 141

dependability, orderliness, and precision, and ‘Perseverance’, which refers to

the capability to fulfill one’s own tasks and commitments.
(iv) The dimension Emotional Stability ( S ) refers to personality characteristics
often considered under the labels of ‘Neuroticism’ and of ‘Negative affect’
(McCrae and Costa, 1987; Watson and Tellegen, 1985). This dimension is
organized into the following facets: ‘Emotion Control’, which refers to the
capacity to cope adequately with one’s own anxiety and emotionality, and
‘impulse Control’, which refers to the capability to control irritation,
discontent, and anger.
(v) The dimension Openness (0) refers to the factor labelled ‘Culture’ (Norman,
1963), ‘intellect’ (Goldberg, 1990), or ‘Openness to Experience’ (Costa and
McCrae, 1985; see also De Raad and Van Heck, 1994). This dimension is
organized into the following facets: ‘Openness to Culture’, which refers to the
broadness or narrowness of one’s own cultural interests, and ‘Openness to
Experiences’, which refers to openness to novelty, tolerance of different values,
and interest in different people, habits, and life-styles.

Each facet scale contains 12 items; half the items are positively worded with
respect to the scale name, and half are negatively worded in order to control for
possible acquiescence response set. The Lie (L) scale is designed to assess the ‘social
desirability’ type of response set and contains 12 items. In replying to the 132 items
in the questionnaire, the respondent has a five-choice answer scale that ranges from
complete disagreement (1, veryfalse for me) to complete agreement (5, very truefor
me).
The psychometric characteristics of the BFQ are summarized in Table 1. Its factor
structure, obtained by principal axis factoring of the ten facet scales, with a tandem
criteria orthogonal rotation (Comrey and Lee, 1992), was consistent with the
expected hypotheses. it revealed high stability across different groups of subjects
with different demographic, cultural, and linguistic characteristics, to whom the
questionnaire was administered under different conditions. The factor scores
resulting from the principal factors analysis showed a substantial overlap with the
scores for the expected five dimensions (see the Rft index in Table 1). The internal
consistency and temporal stability of the dimension and facet scales were quite
satisfactory (see the Cronbach alpha and test-retest reliabilities), as well as their
stabilities across different languages. The construct validity, convergent and
discriminant, was established by correlations with standard markers of the FFM,
such as the NEO-PI. Those correlations are substantial, ranging from 0.62 to -0.80.
Note that the -0.80 correlation between our BFQ S (Emotional Stability) scale and
the NEO-PI N (Neuroticism) scale is due to their reversed scoring.

Statistical analysis
The initial step in our procedure was to examine dimensions underlying individual
differences in Propensity toward Aggression, doing so by performing a principal
components analysis on the following scales: Irritability, Hostile Rumination,
Tolerance toward Violence, Physical Aggression, Verbal Aggression, Hostility,
Anger, Trait Anger, Anger Out, and Moral Disengagement. To test the stability of
the factor solution across sexes, correlations between factor structures from separate
142 G . V. Caprara et al.

Table 1. Psychometric characteristics of the BFQ

Rotated factors
BFQ facet scales E F C S 0

Dynamism 0.69 0.28 0.05 0.03 0.32 0.66

Dominance 0.67 .0.22 0.22 0.05 0.19 0.58
Cooperativeness 0.01 0.66 0.17 0.05 0.23 0.52
Politeness 0.03 0.71 -0.03 0.15 0.1 1 0.53
Scrupulousness -0.08 0.00 0.65 0.02 - 0.06 0.43
Perseverance 0.46 0.08 0.52 0.09 0.20 0.53
Emotion Control 0.20 0.00 0.07 0.80 0.07 0.69
Impulse Control -0.10 0.20 0.12 0.80 0.05 0.71
Openness to Culture 0.00 0.08 0.34 0.09 0.61 0.50
Openness to Experiences 0.25 0.17 -0.01 0.01 0.66 0.53
Percentage of variance explained 12.52 11.41 9.01 13.25 10.56 56.74

BFQ dimensions
E F C S 0

Cronbach alphaa 81 74 81 90 76
Rtt (test-retest)b 86 77 84 83 77
Stability across languagesC 98 98 97 99 95
Rft“ 94 96 95 99 98
Correlations with NEO-PI analogous 66(E) 65(A) 65(C) - 8 0 0 62(0)
dimensionsd
Note: Decimal points omitted. Loading of BFQ facets referring to the same factor are in italics.
aN= 2309; bN=133; Ccongruence coefficients (Tucker, 1951) among factor solutions derived from 2309
Italians, 733 Americans, and 1298 Spaniards; dN= 670.
BFQ dimensions: E = Energy, F = Friendliness, C = Conscientiousness, S = Emotional Stability,
0 = Openness.
HSQ = Communalities.
Rft = Correlations among factor scores and apriori scores obtained by the sum of the 24 items constructed
to measure the factor.
NEO-PI Dimensions: E =Extraversion; A =Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; N = Neuroticism;
0 = Openness to Experience.

principal components analysis performed on male and female subgroups were

computed using the Everett method (1983).
The second step was to correlate scores on each of the ten scales that comprise
Propensity toward Aggression with the five factor scores of the BFQ. Those BFQ
factor scores were derived from factor analysis of the ten facet scales that
comprise the BFQ. In addition, we correlated each of the factor scores emerging
from a factor analysis of the ten Propensity toward Aggression scales with the
BFQ factor scores*.
*Unlike the practice used in other studies (e.g. McCrae and Costa, 1989), the scales were not jointly
factored with markers of the Five Factors. As noted by Gurtman, ‘The advantage of this approach is that,
it yields a . . . space unaffected by the inclusion of the scales themselves (which could conceivably distort
the structure)’ (1991, p. 676, note 1). A consequence of this practice, however, is that, because shared
variance is excluded, estimation of the correlation of a scale with the FFM will be lower than it will be
when joint factor analysis is applied (Gurtman, 1991; Wiggins and Broughton, 1991). However, we believe
that our method is preferable because the obtained results are clearer and less confounded than if a
conjoint factor analysis were used.
 Personality in aggression 143

RESULTS

Let us first examine the latent components of indicators of individual differences in

Propensity toward Aggression, as shown in Figure 1. The principal components
analysis of the ten scales shows the clear emergence of two principal components.
Only the first two components have an eigenvalue greater than 1.0, with steadily
diminished values evident from the third through the tenth components. The first
two components were then rotated using the varimax method of rotation3.
Table 2 presents the rotated factor solution, as well as the percentages of variance
explained by the rotated factors and the eigenvalues of the non-rotated components.
The graphical representation of this analysis is presented in Figure 1 .
The first component is represented by major loadings of Irritability (IRR), Anger
(A), Anger Out (AO), Trait Anger Scale (TAS), Physical Aggression (PA), and
Verbal Aggression (VA). It is reasonable to interpret this component as a dimension
related primarily to impulsive and expressive aspects of aggression.
The second component is represented by major loadings of Tolerance toward
Violence (TV) and Moral Disengagement (MD). Hostile Rumination (R) and
Hostility (H) are both characterized as cognitions bound by negative affect, with
Hostile Rumination also having a vindictive, compulsive orientation. They also have
major loadings on the first component, but have high loadings on the second
component as well. Our interpretation of this second component conceives of it as a
dimension related primarily to cognitive and instrumental aspects of aggression, and
tolerance toward, or acceptance of, the consequences of violence.
The correlations between the factor structures for males and females were
identical, that is, r=0.99 for both factors. Thus, it is evident that there is high
stability for our factor solutions and, further, that our results can be generalized
across gender.
One of the most important statistics reported in Table 2 is the high level of
variance explained by the two factors extracted from our factor analysis of the ten
measures of individual differences in Propensity toward Aggression. The combined
amount of variance explained, 59 percent, is partitioned into 38 percent for Factor 1
and 21 percent for Factor 2. We will have more to say about this result in the
discussion section.
The data in Table 3 help to clarify and broaden our interpretation of the meaning
of the two major components of aggression and of their relationship to the BFQ
factor scores.

Conscientiousness and openness

BFQ-Conscientiousness and BFQ-Openness appear to be negligible in understanding

individual differences in Propensity toward Aggression, since none of the ten scales
nor the second-order components had any correlations with them greater than 0.30.

3An oblique rotation of the unrotated factor pattern was attempted according to the Oblimin rotational
method and resulted in two slightly correlated factors ( r = 0.29). We preferred to remain with the ‘simpler’
and more usual Varimax orthogonal solution for several reasons: because the two oblique factors were
correlated 0.96 and 0.99 respectively, with the orthogonal one, and because the pattern of correlation with
the FFM remained substantially unchanged.
144 G . V. Caprara et al.
Positive Evaluation
of Violence

OH
R e
PA
.IRR
VA 0
TAS0.A

I I I I b

A0 High Emotional
Responsiviiy

Figure 1. Graphical representation of the positioning of the ten indicators of individual

differences in Propensity toward Aggression in the factor space of Emotional Responsivity
and Positive Evaluation of violence (N=477). Scales: IRR, Irritability; A, Anger; AO, Anger
Out; TAS, Trait Anger Scale; PA, Physical Aggression; VA, Verbal Aggression; R, Hostile
Rumination; H, Hostility; TV, Tolerance toward Violence; MD, Moral Disengagement.

Table 2. The factor analysis of individual differences in propensity toward aggression

(rotated factor structure, variance explained by rotated factors, and eigenvalues of unrotated
factors)

Scales Factor 1 Factor 2 HSQ

IRR 82 27 76
A 79 13 74
A0 78 - 07 43
TAS 77 14 78
PA 61 33 49
VA 61 19 41
R 52 39 64
H 52 41 44
TV 07 88 61
MD 19 85 61
Variance explained 38.3% 20.8% 59.1%

Note: Decimal points have been omitted. Loadings higher than 30 are in italics.
Scales: IRR, irritability; A, Anger; AO, Anger Out; TAS, Trait Anger Scale; PA, Physical Aggression; VA,
Verbal Aggression; HR, Hostile Rumination; H, Hostility; TV, Tolerance toward Violence; MD, Moral
Disengagement Scale.
HSQ Communalities.
Eigenvalues of non-rotated factors: 4.55, 1.35, 0.78, 0.71, 0.64, 0.57, 0.40, 0.38, 0.34, 0.28.
 Personality in aggression 145

Table 3. Correlations of aggression scales and of second-order factors with the Five-Factor
Model of personality

BFQ dimensions
Scales E F C S 0

IRR 07 - 32** - 07 - 62** - 17**

A 11* - 19** - 07 - 58** - 07
A0 05 - 30** - 15** - 55** 05
TAS 10 - 29** -11* - 53** - 08
PA 25** - 34** -11* - 30** - 03
VA 32** -25** -07 - 32** 13*
R 11* -42** 01 - 29** - 11*
H - 09 - 30** 04 -42** -11*
Tv 04 -28** - 16** - 07 - 10
MD 09 - 37** - 18** - 12* - 23**
AGGRl 15** -32** - 07 -68** -01
AGGR2 05 -34** - 13* 01 - 20**

Note. Decimal points have been omitted. Scales: IRR, Irritability; A, Anger; AO, Anger Out; PA, Physical
Aggression; VA, Verbal Aggression; R, Hostile Rumination; H, Hostility; TV, Tolerance toward Violence;
MD, Moral Disengagement. BFQ Dimensions: E, Energy, F, Friendliness, C, Conscientiousness, S,
Emotional Stability, 0, Openness. AGGRI, Emotional Responsivity; AGGRZ, Positive Evaluation of
Violence.
N = 477; * p <0.01; **p < 0.001.

Thus, these important dimensions of personality can be removed from our analysis
of the substrate of individual differences in aggression.

Energy
For the BFQ-Energy Factor, it was found that the only scale that was substantially
correlated with it was Verbal Aggression (r = 0.32). This correlation can be traced to
the presence in that personality scale of items related to dominance and
assertiveness. Such findings are consistent with those of Buss and Perry (1992)
who reported a comparable correlation ( r = 0.49) between Verbal Aggression and
Assertiveness. The only other scale with a moderate correlation with this personality
factor of Energy is Physical Aggression ( r = 0.25). Therefore, the Energy dimension
of personality seems to be limited in its relevance to an individual’s Propensity
toward Aggression.

Friendliness and Emotional Stability

A quite different profile can be seen in the broad pattern of significant relationships
between BFQ-Friendliness and BFQ-Emotional Stability and most of the ten
propensity toward aggression scales, as well as the second-order components
underlying them. These robust correlations are all negative, indicating that in
general, propensity toward aggression increases as one is less friendly, or more
hostile interpersonally, and less emotionally stable at an intrapersonal level of
functioning. In examining each of the individual measures as they relate to these
BFQ factors, we highlight the following relationships:
146 G . V. Caprara et al.

Irritability has the highest correlation with Emotional Stability ( r = -0.61), and a
moderate one with Friendliness (r = -0.32). Anger is expressed most strongly as the
second highest correlation, after Irritability, with Emotional Stability ( I = -0,58),
and but weakly with Friendliness ( r = -0.19). Anger Out shows a similarly high
correlation with Emotional Stability ( r = -0.56), and also a moderate one with
Friendliness ( r = -0.30). Trait Anger reveals a similar pattern of a robust correlation
with Emotional Stability ( r = -0.53), and a weaker one with Friendliness
( r = -0.29). Physical Aggression is correlated similarly and moderately with
Friendliness ( I = -0.34) and Emotional Stability (r = -0.30). Verbal Aggression is
somewhat more highly correlated with Emotional Stability (r = -0.32) than with
Friendliness ( r = -0.25). Hostile Rumination has the highest correlation of any of
the scales with Friendliness ( r = -0.42), but also a moderate one with Emotional
Stability ( r = -0.29). Hostility also loads on both personality factors, but more
strongly so on Emotional Stability ( r = -0.42) than on Friendliness ( r = -0.30).
The final two measures differ from all the others in that they both relate only to
Friendliness and not at all to Emotional Stability. Tolerance toward Violence
correlates moderately with Friendliness ( r = -0.28), and not with Emotional
Stability ( r = -0.07). The same is true for Moral Disengagement which shows a
relevant correlation only with Friendliness ( r = - 0.37), while the correlation with
Emotional Stability was -0.12.

Aggression composites
Finally, the bottom of Table 3 shows the correlations between the second-order
components of the ten scales, reduced to two Aggression composites, and each of the
BFQ factors. Recall that AGGR-1 is Emotional Responsivity, while AGGR-2 is
Positive Evaluation of Aggression. AGGR-1 is correlated negatively with both BFQ
factors, but very strongly so with Emotional Stability ( r = -0.68) and more modestly
with Friendliness (r = -0.32). In sharp contrast, our AGGR-2 component correlates
only with Friendliness ( r = -0.34), and not at all with Emotional Stability ( r = 0.01).

DISCUSSION

These analyses have uncovered a surprisingly elegant correspondence between the

features of two central forms of aggression, that have been repeatedly identified, and
two primary dimensions of individual differences related to aggression. In turn,
those individual differences can be located in a specific quadrant of a Personality
Space created by the FFM of personality, and measured by the Big Five
Questionnaire (BFQ).
The Five-Factor Model has been chosen as the canonical reference model to
describe personality by most of the researchers working in the area of personality
assessment (see e.g. Goldberg, 1990; 1992; McCrae and John, 1992). Thus, we
advocate that other researchers use this standard to enhance the comparability of
research findings across diverse populations of respondents in various assessment
settings.
Using a relatively large sample of non-college adults who completed a battery of
ten scales each previously shown to relate to aggression, we have identified two main
 Personality in aggression 147

factors that explain the bulk of the variance (59 percent) in Propensity toward
Aggression. The first factor, accounting for 38 percent of the variance, represents the
impulsive, affective dimension of aggression. The second factor, accounting for 2 1
percent of the variance, represents the social-cognitive and intrumental dimension of
aggression. This factor’s substance is to be found in Tolerance for Violence, an
attitudinal measure, and in Moral Disengagement, a set of cognitive measures, as
well as in Hostile Rumination, a measure of obsessively hostile thinking, and
Hostility, a measure of interpersonal aggression.

Conclusions
Several conclusions emerge from this central finding of our research. First, there is
an obvious match between these factors summarizing a set of individual difference
constructs and the two forms of aggression that have been well established across a
variety of fields of research on aggression. The impulsive, reactive, emotional type of
aggression is reflected in our factor Emotional Responsivity, a kind of
temperamental factor. The more proactive, cognitive, and instrumental type of
aggression finds its reflection in our factor Positive Evaluation of Violence, an
evaluative, social-cognitive factor. Since the best marker variables of this factor are
Tolerance toward Violence and Moral Disengagement, and since they are both
rooted in the person’s value system, we think of them as learned social orientations.
The second conclusion calls attention to the fact that, while most of the examined
individual differences in Propensity toward Aggression can be reduced to these two
main dimensions, only Emotional Responsivity is reducible to the FFM of
personality for a considerable portion of its variance. The second factor can be
reduced to the FFM in only a relatively small portion of its variance. Thus, the FFM
is confirmed as a personality framing for understanding individual differences in
aggression, specifically for the dimension of impulsive aggression. However, as one
might expect, this analysis confirms that the FFM is only in part adequate to explain
the multi-dimensional nature of aggression.
After identifying all the variance traceable to nine of the most frequently used
assessment instruments in research on individual differences in aggression (plus a
new promising one, Moral Disengagement), there is still a significant portion of
variance (41 percent) unaccounted for. Beyond measurement errors, there will be a
substantial portion of variance attributable to variables outside the person, to the
social setting, to cultural, historical, political, and other macro-level constructs.
Thus, it remains for future research to specify the percent of remaining variance after
partialling out the contributions from individual differences that are traceable to
specific situational variables. Clearly one next step then is to regress the Propensity
toward Aggression variables, studied here, on a set of objective measures of
aggression used in research that varies situational features of the behavior setting.

Comparisons with other personality-aggression research

In comparing our results with those of other researchers, several clarifications are in
order. First, the principal component analysis of the ten indicators of the propensity
to behave aggressively yielded a solution quite similar to those when scales or items
from standard aggression questionnaires were subject to conjoint factor analyses (see
148 G. V. Caprara et al.

Buss and Durkee, 1957; Spielberger et al., 1983). One of our components was
identified as a dimension related to impulsive, expressive aspects of aggression,
similar to that found in our previous studies, labelled as Emotional Responsivity .
The other reflected the cognitive component of aggressive tendencies; it was
identified by high loadings on Tolerance toward Violence and Moral Disengagement.
It was similar to the dimension our previous research had found and labeled
Proneness to Aggression (Caprara et al., 1994 b; c).
Secondly, recall that Buss and Perry (1992) used their new Aggression
Questionnaire to uncover three components of aggressive behavior, an instrumental
or motor performance component, an affective component, and a cognitive
component. In our study, a single common factor joined the emotional
component (represented by Anger) and the instrumental o r motor one
(represented by Physical and Verbal Aggression, and other measures of anger
expression). The cognitive component (represented by Hostility) correlated with
both our affective and social-cognitive components. It is likely that this difference is
due to the broader spectrum of aggression measures examined in our study, as well
as to our higher-order factor analysis.

Practical implications
Our research has a number of implications for issues of health and disease, violence,
intervention strategies, and also for education of ‘at risk’ children to prevent their
spiralling of negative self-feelings into aggressive outbursts.

Coronary diseases and hostility

Consideration of the separate roles played in aggression by intrapsychic processes,
such as emotional responsivity, and interpersonal ones, such as hostility, leads to a
comparison with a new body of research from the field of coronary artery disease
(CAD) and coronary heart disease (CHD). There is a surprising degree of overlap
with the kind of research on aggression we have been discussing. Hostility has been
identified as a key variable in increasing one’s vulnerability to these kinds of
circulatory disease. But the path is neither simple nor direct. Two different forms of
hostility have been distinguished (Costa, McCrae and Dembroski, 1988; Stone and
Costa, 1990). Hostility, as an ‘intrapsychic affect’, is manifested in the tendency to
experience anger, frustration, or rage frequently, intensely, and across many
situations. The other form that hostility may take is as an aspect of interpersonal
behavior. Then, it is manifested in an antagonistic orientation toward other people,
and typically expressed in a cool, unemotional behavioral style.
Both kinds of hostility have been linked to the FFM of personality traits. The
intraspychic type of hostility is found to be a facet of Neuroticism, while the
interpersonal type of hostility is a facet of the dimension of Agreeableness versus
Hostility. This distinction has been of great utility in the research on CAD and
CHD. The neurotic, ‘hot blooded’ form of intrapsychic hostility is associated with
anxiety, somatic complaints and hypochondriacal tendencies-but does not predict
either of these disease conditions. Only the antagonistic, ‘cold-blooded’ form of
interpersonal hostility is associated with severity of CAD and CHD. These two types
of hostility seem to have paradoxical effects since the one that is self-focused does
 Personality in aggression 149

not predict coronary diseases, while the one that is other-focused does predict the
likelihood of suffering from one of these coronary conditions. It is the latter,
interpersonally focused form of hostility that is at the core of our second major
aggression factor. Awareness of this distinction can inform CAD and CHD
treatment programs by attempting to discover the cost of expressing interpersonal
hostility in terms of social adjustment and somatic well-being.

Violence
By successfully mapping indicators of individual differences in Propensity toward
Aggression, and its underlying components, into the personality space created by the
FFM of personality, we have located the ‘violence danger zone’. It is found in the
quadrant of that personality space defined on one dimension by Emotional
Instability, and on the other by Hostility. Aggression is best predicted among those
who score high on the affective dimension of Emotional Stability (versus
Neuroticism) and on the interpersonal dimension of Friendliness o r
Agreeableness. Thus, the intersection where the potential for violence should be
greatest is among individuals who are most anxious, unstable, and temperamental,
and who are also least friendly and least agreeable in their relationships.
A special danger to society occurs when those who are emotionally unstable and
social isolates join volatile groups of like-minded members with violence on their
agenda, such as terrorist groups and some fighting gangs. Groups serve the multiple
functions of enhancing excitation through communal, high-intensity activities,
diffusing individual responsibility, anesthetizing individual anxiety, lowering social
accountability, and normalizing deviant behaviors that are congruent with group
norms. They can promote a state of deindividuation that ‘liberates’ behavior from its
usual cognitive controls, enabling the actor to take actions that are normally
inhibited, notably violent, anti-social actions (Zimbardo, 1970). Here earlier
prevention should aim to provide two separate strategies: to substitute affiliations
with a more positive social orientation, and to teach effective coping mechanisms to
deal with recurring sources of conflicts, frustrations, and threats. These kinds of
preventions are likely to fare better than post hoc remedies.

Educationlprevention with ‘at risk’ children

Among young children (to 10 years of age) previous research of ours has revealed
that a single dimension largely combines emotional instability, physical and verbal
aggression, and moral disengagement. However, as children mature, a separate
second dimension emerges, of a more social-cognitive nature, where Tolerance for
Violence, Hostile Rumination, and Moral Disengagement come to the fore, as in our
second aggression factor (see Caprara et al., 1994 b; c). Younger children’s
aggressioq then needs to be controlled by reducing situationally based sources of
provocation and irritability, enhancing self-control mechanisms, and providing
means for lessening anxiety over being socially rejected by peers and teachers. This
strategy should help avoid the impulsive aggression and social rejection that combine
into a vicious circle leading to the colder, proactive forms of hostile rumination and
moral justification of violence (see Caprara and Zimbardo, 1996). With older
children, interventions must add the social dimension of teaching concern for others
150 G. V. Caprara et al.

and specifically building interpersonal social skills to reduce occasions of

interpersonal hostility.

Zn ter ventions
It is mostly the second form of aggression, the proactive, the socially-cognitively
based, that should be influenced by abstract societal representations of future costs
of current violent acts, such as disciplinary actions, fines, or threats of imprisonment.
Thus, different types of social influence, persuasive communications, and
propaganda efforts need to be tailored to people with these differing personality
foundations for their aggressive tendencies. So, while suitable threats and incentives
might work to modify proactive forms of aggression, the best medicine for the more
volatile forms of impulsive aggression might include changing salient stimulus or
structural features of habitual behavior settings that expose certain vulnerable
people to recurring provocations. One example concerns the often debated issue of
TV violence. Since it is well documented that certain people are more vulnerable to
aggressive exposure and media models than others (Caprara, D’Imperio, Gentilomo,
Mammuccari, Renzi and Travaglia, 1987; Huesman, Eron, Lefkowitz and Walder,
1984; Huesman and Malamuth, 1986), special efforts are called for to target such
individuals for ‘protection’ against the noxious effect of aggressive exposure.
Another example concerns the business world, where job layoffs of qualified
personnel because of ‘corporate restructuring’ can lead to violent reprisals by
otherwise non-aggressive men. Instituting a sensitive counseling program that
prepares employees for this traumatic event, when companies have lead time in
anticipating such unemployment, could alleviate hostile, even lethal reactions in
those who are most emotionally unstable.
However any interventions into violent behavior must recognize its enormous
complexity and host of contributing factors, only one of which is individual
differences in what we have called Propensity toward Aggression. Olweus (1991) has
demonstrated that it is possible to reduce significantly the aggressive behavior of
school bullies by a massive public campaign that involved parents, teachers, and
school administrators, as well as the children in question-bullies and victims. Some
forms of intervention must come at societal and governmental levels, such as gun
control laws, and reduction of the ‘almost continuous exposure to glorified,
unrealistic violence in the entertainment media’ (Lore and Schultz, 1993, p. 23).

New directions in aggression research

It is vital for future research on aggression to begin systematic multi-modal
investigations that go beyond the traditional boundaries of experimental, cognitive,
personality, health, and social psychology, by better utilizing and integrating the
wisdom from each area. We now know, with some certainty, that it is essential to
define which form of aggression is being studied, the impulsive, affective variety or
the proactive, cognitive variety. We can increase our level of specification by also
shaping our data collection and analyses with the insights about causal determinants
and self-regulatory cognitive mechanisms. Next, we need to link various outcomes to
alternative sets of individual difference variables, as in the case of research on CAD
and CHD.
 Personality in aggression 15 1

The person, the situation, and aggression

Finally, we can return with renewed confidence to the study of aggression by

understanding it in Lewinian terms as the interaction of person variables with
situational variables (Lewin, 1943). Experimental social psychologists have tried to
demonstrate the power of situational variables over dispositional ones by using
paradigms in which naive subjects are put into novel behavior settings, such as mock
prisons (Zimbardo, 1972), or blind obedience to authority situations (Milgram,
1974). Such alien environments minimize the dynamic role of personality by reducing
the opportunities for ‘characteristic’ ways of responding (as measured by personality
scales). Personality traits are predictors of aggressive behavior when people are
observed in settings more familiar to them, or when they report on how they usually
behave in previously experienced settings, or when it is possible to predict how
salient situational features might be perceived differently by those with different
personality structures.
When individuals are studied in novel situations that are not of their choosing,
that they would typically avoid or escape from, then knowing their habitual response
patterns will be of value in behavioral predictions only if such knowledge allows us
to capture the latent logic that organizes their behavior patterns. As situational
variables become stronger, individual differences become less significant in
predicting or controlling behavior. It is when such external influences are
moderate or ambiguous that personality factors are more likely to come into play
(Mischel, 1984).
We can think of personality not as inborn entity, but as a learned filter for relating
in consistent ways to other people and to various types of behavior setting, and we
can think of social features of those settings as exerting powerful controls on an
individual’s attention, memory, motivation, emotions, and activation of scripts and
schemas. Together, they influence behavioral outcomes (see Ross and Nisbett, 1991).
The time has come to understand how person and situation matter in their complex
interplay, when our goal is a fuller understanding of the nature of human aggression
and societal violence.
For this purpose individual differences related to different forms of aggression
may help to investigate how different patterns behave in different situations and
which are the constraints of different situations with regard to the stability of
different patterns. Whereas the study of patterns leads to the study of more basic
processes which underlie mental structures which supervise over aggressive
behaviors, the knowledge of multiple and reciprocal influence between processes,
situations, and behaviors can be further expanded (see Caprara, 1996). Ultimately
interventions aimed at preventing and changing aggression can be grounded on more
solid bases.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,

NJ.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
152 G . V. Caprara et al.

Bandura, A. (1991). ‘Human agency: the rhetoric and the reality’, American Psychologist, 46:
157-162.
Bending, A. W. (1962). ‘Factor analytic scales of covert and overt hostility’, Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 2 6 200.
Berkowitz, L. (1974). ‘Some determinants of impulsive aggression: the role of mediated
association with reinforcement for aggression’, Psychological Review, 81: 165-176.
Berkowitz, L. (1989). ‘Frustration-aggression hypothesis: examination and reformulation’,
Psychological Bulletin, 106: 59-73.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its Causes, Consequences, and Control, McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Boyle, G. J. (1989). ‘Re-examination of the major personality-type factors in the Cattell,
Comrey and Eysenck scales: were the factor solutions by Noller et al. optimal?’, Personality
and Individual differences, 10: 1289-1 299.
Buss, A. H., and Durkee, A. (1957). ‘An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility’,
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21: 343-348.
Buss, A. H. and Perry, M. (1992). ‘The aggression questionnaire’, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 63: 452-459.
Buss, A. H. and Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early Developing Personality Traits,
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Caprara, G. V. (1983). ‘La misura dell’aggressiviti: contributo di ricerca per la costruzione e la
validazione di due scale per la misura dell’irritabilita e della suscettibilita emotiva’ [‘A
research contribution via the construction and validation of two scales for the measurement
of irritability and emotional susceptibility’], Giornale di Psicologia Italiana, 9: 91-1 11.
Caprara, G. V. (1986). ‘Indicators of aggression: the Dissipation-Rumination scale’,
Personality and Individual Differences, 7: 23-3 1.
Caprara, G. V. (1987). ‘The disposition-situation debate and research on aggression’,
European Journal of Personality, 1: 1-16.
Caprara, G. V. (1 996). ‘Structures and processes in personality psychology’, European
Psychologist, 1: 13-25.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L. and Perugini, M. (1993). ‘The Big Five
Questionnaire: a new questionnaire for the measurement of the Five Factor Model’,
Personality and Individual Differences, 15: 281-288.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L. and Perugini, M. (1994a). ‘Cinque fattori e
dieci sottodimensioni per la descrizione della personaliti’ [‘Five factors and ten facets for
describing personality’], Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 21: 77-97.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C. and Comrey, A. L. (1992a). ‘A personological approach to
the study of aggression’, Personality and Individual Differences, 13: 77-84.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C. and Perugini, M. (1994b). ‘Individual
differences in the study of human aggression’, Aggressive Behavior, 20: 291-303.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Vicino, S. and Bandura, A. (1996). ‘La misura del
disimpegno morale’ [‘Measuring moral disengagement’], Rassegna di Psicologia, 13, 93-103.
Caprara, G. V., Cinanni, V., D’Imperio, G., Passerini, S., Renzi, P. and Travaglia, G. (1985).
‘Indicators of impulsive aggression: present status on research on irritability and emotional
susceptibility’, Personality and Individual Difj‘erences, 6: 665-674.
Caprara, G. V., Cinanni, V. and Mazzotti, E. (1989). ‘Measuring attitude toward violence’,
Personality and Individual Differences, 10: 47948 1.
Caprara, G. V., D’Imperio, G., Gentilomo, A., Mammuccari, A., Renzi, P. and Travaglia, G.
(1 987a). ‘The intrusive commercial: influence of aggressive TV commercials on aggression’,
European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 23-31.
Caprara, G. V., Gargaro, T., Pastorelli, C., Prezza, M., Renzi, P. and Zelli, A. (1987b).
‘Individual differences and measures of aggression in laboratory studies’, Personality and
Individual Differences, 8: 885-893.
Caprara, G. V., Manzi, J. and Perugini, M. (1992b). ‘Investigating guilt in relation to
emotionality and aggression’, Personality and Individual Diflerences, 13: 519-532.
Caprara, G. V., Mazzotti, E., and Prezza, M. (1990a). ‘Una scala per la misura
dell’atteggiamento verso la violenza’ [‘A scale for measuring attitude toward violence’],
Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 17: 107-120.
 Personality in aggression 153

Caprara, G. V. and Pastorelli, C. (1989). ‘Toward a reorientation on research on aggression’,

European Journal of Personality, 3: 121-138.
Caprara, G. V. and Perugini, M. (1991). ‘L’approccio psicolessicale e I’emergenza dei big five
nello studio della personalit2 [‘Psycholexical approach and the emergency of the big five in
the study of personality’], Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 18: 721-747.
Caprara, G. V., Perugini, M. and Barbaranelli, C. (1994~).‘Studies ofindividual differences in
aggression’. In: Potegal, M. and Knutson, J. F. (Eds), The Dynamics of Aggression,
pp. 123-153, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Caprara, G. V., Perugini, M., Barbaranelli, C. and Pastorelli, C. (1993). ‘Fenomenologia
aggressiva e disposizioni di personalit2 [‘Aggressive phenomenology and personality
dispositions’], Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 20: 299-3 18.
Caprara, G. V., Perugini, M., Pastorelli, C. and Barbaranelli, C. (1990b). ‘Esplorazione delle
dimensioni comuni della colpa e dell’aggressivita’: contributo empirico’ [‘Exploration of
common dimensions of guilt and aggression: an empirical contribution’], Giornale Italiano
di Psicologia, 17: 665-681.
Caprara, G. V., Renzi, P., Alcini, P., D’Imperio, G. and Travaglia, G. (1983). ‘Instigation to
aggress and escalation of aggression examined from a personological perspective: the role of
irritability and emotional susceptibility’, Aggressive Behavior, 9: 354-358.
Caprara, G. V., Renzi, P., Amolini, P., DImperio, G. and Travaglia, G. (1984). ‘Istigaton e
mediatori della condotta aggressiva’ [‘Instigators and mediators of aggressive conduct’],
Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 10: 113-128.
Caprara, G. V., Renzi, P., D’Augello, D., D’Imperio, G., Rielli, I. and Travaglia, G. (1986).
‘Interpolating physical exercise between instigation and aggression: the role of irritability
and emotional susceptibility’, Aggressive Behavior, 12: 83-91.
Caprara, G. V. and Zimbardo, P. G. (1996). ‘Aggregation and amplification of marginal
deviations in the social construction of personality and maladjustment’, European Journal of
Personality, 10: 79-1 10.
Comrey, A. L. (1970). The Comrey Personality Scales, EdITS, San Diego, CA.
Comrey, A. L. (1980). Handbook for the Interpretation of the Comrey Personality Scales,
EdITS, San Diego, CA.
Comrey, A. L. (1995). Revised Manual and Handbook for the Comrey Personality Scales,
EdITS, San Diego, CA.
Comrey, A. L. and Lee, H. B. (1992). A First Course in Factor Analysis, 2nd edn, Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ.
Costa, P. T., Jr. and McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory Manual,
Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.
Costa, P. T, Jr., McCrae, R. R. and Dembroski, T. M. (1989). ‘Agreeableness versus
antagonism: explication of a potential risk factor for CHD’. In: Siegman, A. W. and
Dembroski, T. M. (Eds), In Search of Coronary-Prone Behavior. Beyond Type A , pp. 41-63,
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R. and Dye, D. A. (1991). ‘Facet scales for aggreeableness and
conscientiousness: a revision of the NEO Personality Inventory’, Personality and Individual
Differences, 12: 887-898.
Dengerink, H. O., O’Leary, R. and Kasner, K. (1975). ‘Individual differences in aggressive
responses to attack: internakxternal locus of control and field dependency-independency’,
Journal of Research in Personality, 9: 191-199.
De Raad, B., and Van Heck, G. L. (Eds) (1994). ‘The Fifth of the Big Five (Special issue)’,
European Journal of Personality, 8 (4).
Digman, J. M. (1990). ‘Personality structure: emergence of the Five Factor Model’, Annual
Review of Psychology, 41: 417-440.
Dodge, K. A. and Coie, J. D. (1987). ‘Social information processing factors in reactive and
proactive aggression in children and peer groups’ Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 53: 11461158.
Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, 0. H. and Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration
and Aggression. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Everett, J. E. (1983). ‘Factor comparability as a means of determining the number of factors
and their rotation’, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18: 197-218.
154 G . V. Caprara et al.

Eysenck, H. (1990). ‘Biological dimensions of personality’. In: Pervin, L. A. (Ed), Handbook of

Personality Psychology. Theory and Research, pp. 244-276, Guilford, New York.
Geen, R. G. (1990). Human Aggression, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). ‘An alternative “description of personality”: the Big Five factor
structure’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59: 1216-1229.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). ‘The development of markers for the Big Five factor structure’,
Psychological Assessment, 4 26-42.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). ‘The structure of phenotypic personality traits’, American
Psychologist, 48:26-34.
Goldberg, L. R. and Saucier, G. (1994). ‘O.K., Contrarian-what do you propose we use
instead ? A reply to Block’, Oregon Research Institute, Eugene, OR, USA.
Guilford, J. P. (1975). ‘Factors and factors of personality’, Psychological Bulletin, 82: 802-814.
Gurtman, M. B. (199 1). ‘Evaluating the interpersonalness of personality scales’, Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19: 670477.
Hogan, R. (1986). Hogan Personality Inventory Manual, National Computer Systems,
Minneapolis, MN.
Huesman, L. E., Eron, L. D., Lefkowitz, M. M. and Walder, L. 0. (1984). ‘The stability of
aggression over time and generations’, Developmental Psychology, 20: 1 120-1 134.
Huesman, L. R. and Malamuth, N. M. (Eds) (1986). ‘Media violence and antisocial behavior’
(Special Issue). Journal of Social Issues, 42.
John, 0. P. (1990). ‘The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: dimensions of personality in natural
language and in questionnaires’. In: Pervin, L. A. (Ed), Handbook of Personality
Psychology. Theory and Research, pp. 66-100, Guilford, New York.
John, 0. P., Angleitner, A. and Ostendorf, F. (1988). ‘The lexical approach to personality: a
historical review of trait taxonomic research’, European Journal of Personality, 2: 171-203.
Krug, S. E. and Johns, E. F. (1986). ‘A large sample validation of second-order personality
structure defined by the 16PF’, Psychological Reports, 59: 683493.
Lewin, K. (1943). ‘Forces behind food habit and methods of change’, Bulletin of the National
Research Council, 108: 3545.
Lore, R. K. and Schultz, L. (1993). ‘Control of human aggression: a comparative perspective’,
American Psychologist, 48: 16-25.
Malamuth, N. (1984). ‘The mass media, individual characteristics and aggression against
women’. In: Kaplan, R. M., Konecni, V. J. and Novaco, R. W. (Eds), Aggression in Children
and Youth, pp. 264-281, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.
McCrae, R. R. (1989). ‘Why I advocate the Five Factor model: joint analysis of the NEO-PI
and other instruments’. In: Buss, D. M. and Cantor, N. (Eds), Personality Psychology:
Recent Trends and Emerging Directions, pp. 237-245, Springer, New York.
McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985). ‘Comparison of EPI and Psychoticism scales with
measures of the Five Factor Model of personality’, Personality and Individual Differences,6:
587-597.
McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). . , ‘Validation of the Five Factor Model of
personality across instrument and observers’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52: 81-90.
McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989). ‘Rotation to maximize the construct validity of
factors in the NEO-PI’, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24: 107-124.
McCrae, R. R. and John, 0. P. (1992). ‘An introduction to the Five Factor Model and its
applications’, Journal of Personality, 6 0 175-21 5.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority. Harper and Row, New York.
Milgram, S. (1992). In: Sabini, J. and Silver, M. (Eds), The Individual in a Social World: Essays
and Experiments, 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Mischel, W. (1984). ‘Convergences and challenges in the search for consistency’, American
Psychologist, 39: 351-364.
Norman, W. T. (1963). ‘Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicate
factor sctucture in peer nomination personality ratings’, Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 66: 574-583.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the School: Bullies and Whipping Boys, Hemisphere,
Ashington, DC.
 Personality in aggression 155

Olweus, D. (1979). ‘The stability of aggressive reaction patterns in human males: a review’,
Psychological Bulletin, 85: 852-875.
Olweus, D. (1980). ‘The consistency issue in personality psychology revisited with special
reference to aggression’, British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19: 337-380.
Olweus, D. (1984). ‘Stability in aggressive and withdrawn inhibited behaviors pattern’. In:
Kaplan, R. M., Konecni, V. J. and Novaco, R. W. (Eds), Aggression in Children and Youth,
pp. 89-104, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.
Olweus, D. (1991). ‘Bully/victim problems among school children: basic facts and effects of a
school-based intervention program’. In: Rubin, K. and Pepler, D. (Eds), The Development
and Treatment of Childhood Aggression, pp. 41 1448, Erlbaum, Toronto.
Ostendorf, F., and Angleitner, A. (1992). ‘On the generality and comprehensiveness of the
Five-Factor Model of personality: evidence of five robust factors in questionnaire data’. In:
Caprara, G. V. and Van Heck, G. (Eds), Modern personality psychology, pp.73-109,
Harvester Wheatsheaf, London.
Ostendorf, F. and Angleitner, A. (1994). ‘The five-factor taxonomy: robust dimensions of
personality decsription’, Psychologica Belgica, 34: 175-1 94.
Pitkanen-hlkkinen, L. (198 1). ‘Long-term studies on the charateristics of aggressive and
nonaggressive juveniles’. In: Brain, P. F. and Benton, D. (Eds), Multidisciplinary Approach
to Aggression, pp. 215-243, Elsevier-North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Ross, L. and Nisbett, R. (1991). The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social
Psychology, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Siegman, A. W., Dembroski, T. M. and Ringel, N. (1987). ‘Components of hostility and
severity of coronary artery disease’, Psychosomatic Medicine, 49: 127-1 35.
Spielberger, C., Jacobs, G., Russell, S. and Crane, R. (1983). ‘Assessment of anger: the state-
trait anger scale’. In: Butcher, J. and Spielberger, C. (Eds), Advances in Personality
Assessment, Vol. 2, pp. 161-189, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Spielberger, C., Johnson, E., Russell, S., Crane, R., Jacobs, G. and Worden, T. (1985). ‘The
experience and expression of anger: construction and validation of an anger experience
scale’. In: Chesney, M. and Rosenman, R. (Eds), Anger and Hostility in Cardiovascular and
Behavioral Disorders, pp. 5-30, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Stone, S. V. and Costa, P. T., Jr. (1990). ‘Disease-prone personality or distress prone
personality ? The role of neuroticism in coronary heart disease’. In: Friedman, H.S. (Ed),
Personality and Disease, pp. 178-200, Wiley, New York.
Strelau, J. (1983). Temperament, Personality and Activity, Academic, New York.
Tucker, L. R. (1951). ‘A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies’. Personnel Research
Section Report No. 984, Department of the Army, Washington, DC.
Watson, D. and Tellegen, A. (1985). ‘Toward a consensual structure of mood’, Psychological
Bulletin, 98: 219-235.
Wiggins, J. S. and Broughton, R. (1991). ‘A geometric taxonomy of personality’, European
Journal of Personality, 5: 343-365.
Wiggins, J. S. and Pincus, A. L. (1992). ‘Personality: structure and measurement’, Annual
Review of Psychology, 43: 473--504.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1970). ‘The human choice: individuation, reason, and order versus
deindividuation, impulse, and chaos’, In: Arnold, W. J. and Levine, D. (Eds), Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation, 1969, Vol. 17, pp. 237-307, University of Nebraska Press,
Lincoln, NE.
Zimbardo, P. G . (1972). ‘Pathology of imprisonment’, Society, 6: 4, 6, 8.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1979). ‘The psychology of evil: the perversion of human potential’. In:
Sarbin, T.R. (Ed), Challenges to the Criminal Justice System: The Perspectives of Community
Psychology, pp. 142-161, Human Sciences, New York.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Thornquist, M. and Kiers, H. (1991). ‘Five (or three)
robust questionnaire scale factors of personality without culture’, Personality and Individual
Differences, 9: 939-941.