Anger, Relational Victimization, and Vengeance in the Context of Relational Aggression

Home , Vengeance (2001)

The University of Southern Mississippi The Aquila Digital Community

Master's Theses

Summer 2020

Alison Poor

Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/masters_theses

Part of the Counseling Psychology Commons

Recommended Citation Poor, Alison, "Anger, Relational Victimization, and Vengeance in the Context of Relational Aggression" (2020). Master's Theses. 714. https://aquila.usm.edu/masters_theses/714

This Masters Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ANGER, RELATIONAL VICTIMIZATION, AND VENGEANCE IN THE CONTEXT OF RELATIONAL AGGRESSION

Alison Poor

A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate School, the College of Education and Human Sciences and the School of Psychology at The University of Southern Mississippi in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

Approved by:

Dr. Eric Dahlen, Committee Chair Dr. Melanie Leuty Dr. Bonnie Nicholson

______Dr. Eric Dahlen Dr. Sara Jordan Dr. Karen S. Coats Committee Chair Director of School Dean of the Graduate School

August 2020

Alison Poor

2020

Published by the Graduate School

ABSTRACT

Relational aggression involves the aggressor harming the victim’s social status, reputation, and/or relationships. This form of aggression is a relatively new topic in the literature that would benefit from additional research with emerging adults. The present study examined two models involving relational aggression in a college student sample

(N = 247). First, we predicted, based on the general aggression model, that anger rumination would partially mediate the relationship between trait anger and relational aggression. Second, based on the rejection-aggression link, we predicted that vengeance would partially mediate the relationship between relational victimization and aggression.

We tested each model separately via hierarchical multiple regression using Hayes’ (2018)

PROCESS macro for SPSS. As expected, trait anger predicted relational aggression, and anger rumination partially mediated this relationship. While relational victimization was a positive predictor of relational aggression, vengeance did not partially mediate this relationship as we expected. The implications of these findings for future research, as well as prevention and intervention efforts, are addressed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge Dr. Eric Dahlen, my committee chair, for his support, patience, and guidance throughout this research project. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Melanie Leuty and Dr. Bonnie Nicholson, for their invaluable input. Finally, special thanks are given to Taylor Nocera and Philip Stoner for their research and writing help.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iii

LIST OF TABLES ...... vi

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ...... vii

- INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Relational Aggression and Victimization ...... 2

Trait Anger ...... 5

Anger Rumination ...... 6

Vengeance ...... 8

The Present Study ...... 10

- METHODS ...... 12

Participants ...... 12

Instruments ...... 12

Demographic Questionnaire ...... 12

Self-Report of Aggression and Social Behavior Measure (SRASBM) ...... 12

Anger Rumination Scale (ARS)...... 13

Vengeance Scale ...... 14

Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) ...... 14

Procedure ...... 15 iv

- RESULTS ...... 17

Data Screening ...... 17

Preliminary Analyses ...... 17

Primary Analyses ...... 18

Anger Rumination as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Trait Anger and

Relational Aggression ...... 18

Vengeance as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Relational Victimization and

Relational Aggression ...... 20

– DISCUSSION...... 22

Implications for Prevention and Intervention ...... 24

Limitations and Future Directions ...... 25

Conclusion ...... 26

APPENDIX A – CONSENT FORM ...... 28

APPENDIX B – INSTRUCTIONS AND DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 31

Introductory Instructions ...... 31

Demographic Questionnaire ...... 31

APPENDIX C –IRB Approval Letter ...... 34

REFERENCES ...... 36

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Measures ...... 18

Table 2 Model Examining Anger Rumination as a Mediator of the Relationship Between

Trait Anger and Relational Aggression ...... 19

Table 3 Model Examining Vengeance as a Mediator of the Relationship Between

Relational Victimization and Relational Aggression ...... 20

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1. Observed Simple Mediation Model, Hypothesis 1 ...... 19

Figure 2. Observed Simple Mediation Model, Hypothesis 2 ...... 21

vii

- INTRODUCTION

Aggression occurs across all aspects of life- on a playground, in a classroom, driving in traffic, during social events, and in numerous other situations. Because of its prevalence and harmful nature, research has examined multiple and distinct forms of aggression. Although overt aggression in general, and overt physical aggression in particular, have generated the most attention (Lento-Zwolinski, 2007), it is becoming increasingly clear that relational aggression warrants study. Relational aggression is a more subtle and covert form of aggression that involves efforts to harm another’s reputation, status, or feelings of social connectedness through behaviors such as social exclusion, withholding attention, and spreading malicious rumors (Crick & Grotpeter,

1995; Werner & Crick, 1999). Relational aggression has a number of adverse mental health correlates (e.g., anxiety and substance use; Dahlen, Czar, Prather, & Dyess, 2013) as well as broader social concerns (e.g., overt physical aggression; Lento, 2006; Werner

& Crick, 1999). Although we are learning more about the nature and correlates of relational aggression, many gaps remain with respect to the mechanisms through which variables that predict relational aggression may operate (i.e., other factors that may be important in moderating or mediating the relationships of various predictors to relational aggression) and the pathway through which relational victimization may lead to relational aggression (i.e., what factors may help to explain the relationship of relational victimization to relational aggression?). Learning more about the mechanisms through which relational aggression occurs should help to inform efforts to prevent this harmful behavior and provide effective interventions for those affected by it.

The present study had two related aims. First, we sought to build upon previous research showing that trait anger (i.e., the propensity to experience angry feelings) is positively related to relational aggression by examining anger rumination as a possible mediator of this relationship. Although there is ample evidence that anger rumination mediates the relationship between trait anger and overt aggression, the same cannot be said for relational aggression. Second, we sought to build upon previous research showing that relational victimization is positively related to relational aggression and that vengeful attitudes predict overt aggression by examining vengeance as a possible mediator of the relationship between relational victimization and relational aggression.

Relational Aggression and Victimization

Relational aggression is a type of aggressive behavior where the aggressor’s goal is to harm the victim’s relationships, social status, reputation, and/or sense of belonging through acts like manipulation, social exclusion, and rumor spreading (Crick, 1996; Crick

& Grotpeter, 1995; Werner & Crick, 1999). Relational aggression is often safer than overt aggression (i.e., intentionally harming someone through physical or verbal attacks), meaning that it may result in fewer negative consequences to aggressors (Bagner, Storch,

& Preston, 2007).

Research on relational aggression perpetration in emerging adults is relatively small, as most research has focused on children and early adolescents. However, a number of adverse correlates have been identified among emerging adults. For example, relational aggression has been found to better predict social maladjustment among women than overt aggression (Crick, 1996). Other correlates include depression, anxiety, substance use, loneliness (Bagner et al., 2007; Dahlen et al., 2013; Goldstein, Chesir-

Teran, & McFaul, 2008) trait anger (Dahlen et al., 2013; Prather, Dahlen, Nicholson,

Bullock-Yowell, 2012), social anxiety (Bagner et al., 2007), bulimia, and self-destructive tendencies (Werner & Crick, 1999). Relational aggression was also found to correlate with impulsivity (Bailey and Ostrov, 2008; Werner and Crick, 1999), jealousy, clinginess, and distrustfulness (Linder, Crick, & Collins, 2002). Not surprisingly, individuals who engage in relational aggression are more likely to regard the behavior as acceptable (Goldstein, 2011; Goldstein et al., 2008). With regard to personality, relational aggression has been associated with elevated narcissistic and psychopathic traits (Czar,

Dahlen, Bullock, & Nicholson, 2011; Knight, Dahlen, Bullock-Yowell, & Madson,

2018), low agreeableness (Burton, Hafetz, & Henninger, 2007; Knight et al., 2018), high neuroticism (Burton et al., 2007), and low honesty-humility, conscientiousness, and openness (Knight et al., 2018). Other common predictors of relational aggression include acceptance of couple violence and the adoption of traditional gender role attitudes

(Prather et al., 2012), low levels of prosocial behaviors (Lento-Zwolinski, 2007; Werner

& Crick, 1999), fear of negative evaluation, reduced empathetic concern, and poor perspective-taking skills (Loudin, Loukas, & Robinson, 2003).

In addition to the adverse correlates associated with the perpetration of relational aggression, it is clear that relational victimization can also be detrimental. The correlates of relational victimization include depression, anxiety (Dahlen et al., 2013; Goldstein et al., 2008; Gros, Gros, & Simms, 2010), alcohol misuse (Dahlen et al., 2013; Dibello,

Preddy, Øverup, & Neighbors, 2017), low social self-efficacy (Buser, Peterson, &

Kearney, 2012), low self-worth and importance (Goldstein et al., 2008), and interpersonal sensitivity (Lento, 2006). Oka, Brown, and Miller (2016) found that victims are more

likely to display an insecure attachment style. Victims are also likely to be self-reliant, less trusting, more jealous (Linder et al., 2002), and have a generalized sensitivity to social pain (Park, Jensen-Campbell, & Miller, 2017). Lento (2006) also found a relationship between hostility and relational victimization among women. Some research has indicated that relational victimization may be more common than physical victimization, especially in the context of romantic relationships (Lento, 2006). Thus, it is clear that both relational aggression and victimization are associated with many adverse correlates, suggesting that efforts to reduce relationally aggressive behavior are needed.

It should not be surprising that there is a positive relationship between relational victimization and relational aggression (i.e., those who report more relational victimization tend to report engaging in more relational aggression; Marsh et al., 2016;

Wang, Zhang, Li, Yu, Zhen, & Huang, 2015; Yeung & Leadbeater, 2007). Unfortunately, relatively little is known about the nature of this relationship among adolescents or emerging adults, as most of the relevant research has used child participants. In a longitudinal study conducted to examine relational aggression and victimization in third to sixth graders, Ostrov and Godleski (2013) reported a bidirectional relationship, potentially explained by social learning processes. Researchers have generally suggested that children who have experienced high rates of relational victimization may have learned this form of aggressive behavior and became more likely to engage in relational aggression themselves (Hanish & Guerra, 2002; Kawabata, Tseng, & Crick, 2014;

Sullivan, Farrell, & Kliewer, 2006). Additional research is needed to better understand the nature of the relationship between relational victimization and relational aggression among emerging adults.

As we have learned more about the adverse correlates associated with both relational aggression and relational victimization, it has become clear that efforts to prevent these behaviors are needed. At the same time, additional work is needed to better understand the nature of these relationships. In the present study, we tested whether anger rumination mediates the relationship between trait anger and relational aggression and whether vengeance mediates the relationship between relational victimization and relational aggression. The next sections will consider trait anger, anger rumination, and vengeance to explain why they were selected and how we expected them to be relevant to relational aggression.

Trait Anger

Trait anger refers to one’s general propensity to experience angry feelings (i.e., anger proneness) across a variety of contexts (Spielberger, 1999). Someone high on trait anger experiences angry feelings more frequently, intensely, and for longer periods of time than someone lower on trait anger. Trait anger has been studied extensively, and the research has identified a number of serious negative correlates, including suicidal behavior (Zhang et al., 2012), substance misuse (Eftekhari, Turner, & Larimer, 2004), overt aggression (Leki & Wilkowski, 2017; Maldonado, Watkins, & DiLillo, 2015;

Parrott and Zeichner, 2003; Shorey, Brasfield, Febres, & Stuart, 2011; Wilk, Quartana,

Clarke-Walper, Kok, & Riviere, 2015), and cyberbullying (Wang, Yang, Yang, Wang, &

Lei, 2017). The role of anger in aggression is well-documented, and it is clear that trait anger is a robust predictor of aggressive behavior in response to provocation (Leki &

Wilkowski, 2017).

Although most of the research linking trait anger to aggression has focused on overt physical or verbal aggression, trait anger appears to be positively related to relational aggression as well. Using a college student sample, Dahlen and colleagues

(2013) found that trait anger was positively related to relational aggression in both peer and romantic relationships and that trait anger predicted relational aggression while taking participant gender, race, and reported relational victimization into account. Prather and colleagues (2012) also found that trait anger predicted relational aggression in college students’ romantic relationships. Because the literature clearly supports trait anger as a strong predictor of both overt and relational aggression, we expect that it will be positively related to relational aggression.

Anger Rumination

Anger rumination is defined as “unintentional and recurrent cognitive processes that emerge during and continue after an episode of anger experience” (Sukhodolsky,

Golub, & Cromwell, 2001, p. 690). These authors suggest that memories of an anger- provoking experience can lead to state anger (i.e., one’s immediate experience of angry feelings). Siewert, Kubiak, Jonas, and Weber (2011) conducted a study in which they had participants report the frequency of anger rumination throughout a four-week period. The researchers discovered that anger rumination was a fairly common reaction and typically the rumination was directed towards another person.

There is considerable evidence linking anger rumination and overt physical aggression. For example, Bushman, Bonacci, Pedersen, Vasquez, and Miller (2005) conducted an experiment where participants either 1) ruminated after a triggering event or 2) focused on distractions/positive thoughts. Those who ruminated were more likely to

become aggressive when provoked. Wang and colleagues (2018) found that those high in trait anger were more likely to perpetrate overt aggression and that anger rumination mediates the relationship. This is likely because anger rumination allows for increased time contemplating aggressive thoughts and prevents someone from resolving their anger. Other studies have shown that anger rumination mediates the relationship between aggression and contingent self-esteem (Turner & White, 2015), predicts physical and verbal aggressive behavior (Anestis, Anestis, Selby, & Joiner, 2009), and mediates the relationship between mindfulness and aggression (Peters et al., 2015).

The potential role of anger rumination in relational aggression has not been studied; however, there is some evidence that general rumination (i.e., rumination that was not specific to anger) predicts romantic relational aggression in college students

(Goldstein, 2011). Researchers theorized that rumination only predicted romantic relational aggression either because of the items on their general rumination measure were more relevant for romantic relationships or that people may ruminate more on romantic relationships. Moreover, Dibello and colleagues (2016) suggested that people may be more likely to ruminate on relational aggression than physical aggression because of its link to interpersonal manipulation and the tendency for perpetrators to deny malicious intent. Mathieson, Klimes-Dougan, and Crick (2014) found that rumination about victimization moderated the relationship between relational aggression and depressive symptoms because of difficulty regulating emotions.

Wang and colleagues (2018) discussed the mediating role of anger rumination in overt aggression using the general aggression model. The model consists of three levels: personal and situational factors (i.e., trait anger), internal states (i.e., anger rumination),

and outcomes of appraisal and decision-making processes (i.e., propensity to engage in relational aggression). In essence, elevated trait anger may lead to increased anger rumination. In this context, increased anger rumination then may lead to aggressive behavior. Building on previous research on overt aggression (e.g., Wang et al., 2018), we expected that trait anger would be positively related to relational aggression and that anger rumination would mediate that relationship. Individuals with a higher propensity to experience angry feelings appear to be more likely to engage in relational aggression, and we expected that some of this relationship is likely due to anger rumination.

Vengeance

Revenge and vengeful behaviors aim to right a perceived wrong in a harmful manner and have been linked to overt aggressive behaviors (Chester & Dewall, 2018;

Cota-McKinley, Woody, & Bell, 2001; Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2002; Scully & Marolla,

1985). Those who seek revenge typically do so because they likely feel disrespected, want to balance the power, and want to restore honor and self-esteem (Elshout, Nelissen,

& van Beest, 2014; McDonald & Asher, 2013). Stuckless and Goranson (1992) explained that the concept of revenge relies on a perception that one has been wronged, so they created a measure of attitudes toward revenge (i.e., the Vengeance Scale). Those who choose vengeful responses are unlikely to question the morality of their response and may perceive that the benefits of revenge outweigh the costs (Boon, Rasmussen, Deveau,

& Alibhai, 2011). Men are more likely to seek revenge (Elshout, Nelissen, van Beest,

Elshout, & Van Dijk, 2017). Further, Wilkowski, Hartung, Crowe, and Chai (2012) used revenge motivation as a mediator of gender differences in physical aggression to help explain why men are more aggressive than women. They found that men experience a

more positive affect in aggression contexts, possibly leading to multiple instances of aggression.

Vengeance has been linked to dark triad personality traits (Brewer, Hunt, James,

& Abell, 2015): narcissism, making one less likely to forgive (Brown, 2004; Fatfouta,

Gerlach, Schröder-Abé, & Merkl, 2015); Machiavellianism, leading to a focus on power and justice outcomes; and psychopathy, commonly believing revenge is effective

(Rasmussen & Boon, 2014). Given that dark triad traits are known to predict relational aggression (Knight et al., 2018) and revenge is a common motive for aggression (Chester

& Dewall, 2018), it seems likely vengeance would predict relational aggression.

Situations where revenge behavior is common are often preceded by infidelity, threats to one’s self or reputation (Elshout et al., 2014), violations of relationship rules (Boon,

Deveau, & Alibhai, 2009), social exclusion (Elshout et al., 2017), and harassment (Wang et al., 2018).

Relational victimization is positively related to relational aggression. As noted previously, the relationship between relational victimization and relational aggression has yet to be fully explained. Therefore, research into the processes that underlie the relationship is essential to the prevention of relational aggression. Chester and Dewall

(2017) noted a rejection-aggression link, where there is a “desire to repair mood via retaliatory aggression’s association with positive affect (p. 415).” This retaliatory aggression after being victimized can bring one pleasure. Although vengeance has not yet been studied in the context of relational aggression, we tested it as a mediator of the relationship between relational victimization and relational aggression. Vengeance is not a commonly used mediator in the literature; however, because of its relationship to both

victimization and aggression, we expected it to mediate the relationship between relational victimization and relational aggression.

The Present Study

The present study informed our understanding of relational aggression by testing two pathways through which it may occur. First, we examined the possible role of anger rumination in the relationship between trait anger and relational aggression. Previous studies have demonstrated that trait anger is a robust predictor of relational aggression in college student samples (Dahlen et al., 2013; Prather et al., 2012), but the possible role of anger rumination in this relationship had not yet been examined. This is a surprising gap in the literature since anger rumination has been shown to mediate the relationship between trait anger and overt aggression (Wang et al., 2018). We expect that anger rumination would partially mediate the relationship between trait anger and relational aggression. Second, we examined the possible role of vengeance in the relationship between relational victimization and relational aggression. Although there is evidence that relational victimization is positively related to relational aggression (Marsh et al.,

2016; Wang, Zhang, Li, Yu, Zhen, & Huang, 2015; Yeung & Leadbeater, 2007), the possible role of vengeance has received little attention in the context of relational aggression in spite of being linked to overt aggression (Chester & Dewall, 2018). We expected that vengeance would partially mediate the relationship between relational victimization and relational aggression.

The study hypotheses were as follows:

H1: Anger rumination will partially mediate the relationship between trait anger

and relational aggression.

H2: Vengeance will partially mediate the relationship between relational victimization and relational aggression.

- METHODS

Participants

A sample (N = 247) of undergraduate volunteers enrolled at the University of

Southern Mississippi was recruited through the online research system used by the

School of Psychology for managing the subject pool, Sona. Participants were of traditional college age, ranging from 18 to 25 (M age = 19.34; SD = 1.43). There were slightly more women (53.4%) than men 46.6%), but the sample was better balanced with respect to gender than the undergraduate population of the university due to deliberate oversampling of male participants. Regarding year in school, 45.7% of the respondents were freshmen, 22.7% sophomores, 20.2% juniors, and 11.3% seniors. The racial makeup of the sample was as follows: White (70%), Black/African-American (22.3%), Asian

(2.8%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (.8%), Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander

(.8%), some other race (2%), and unknown (1.2%).

Instruments

After obtaining informed consent (see Appendix A), the instruments described in this section were administered online to participants through Qualtrics.

Demographic Questionnaire. A short demographic questionnaire was included to assess participants’ age, race, year in school, gender, and other meaningful characteristics so that the sample could be described (see Appendix B).

Self-Report of Aggression and Social Behavior Measure (SRASBM). The

SRASBM (Linder, Crick, & Collins, 2002; Morales, Ruh, & Werner, 2002) is a 56-item self-report measure assessing physical and relational aggression and victimization in peer and romantic relationships, as well as related variables like peer exclusivity and prosocial

behavior. This study administered the entire measure, excluding the items focusing on romantic relationships; however, the primary subscales of interest were the 7-item

General/Peer Relational Aggression scale and the 4-item General/Peer Relational

Victimization scale. Respondents rated the items on these scales using a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (“not at all true”) to 7 (“very true”) so that higher scores indicated more relational aggression or victimization. Previous studies have shown that the SRASBM subscales have adequate reliability (s = .69 to .88) when used with college-aged samples

(Clark, Dahlen, & Nicholson, 2015; Czar et al., 2011; Dahlen et al., 2013; Linder et al.,

2002). Evidence of construct validity has been demonstrated given comparisons to measures of relational aggression and related constructs (Linder et al., 2002; Murray-

Close, Ostrov, Nelson, Crick, & Coccaro, 2009).

Anger Rumination Scale (ARS). The ARS (Sukhodolsky, Golub, & Cromwell,

2001) is a 19-item self-report measure of anger rumination. Respondents rated each item on a 4-point scale, from 1 (“almost never”) to 4 (“almost always”) so that higher scores indicated higher levels of anger rumination. In addition to the total score, the ARS includes four subscales: Angry Afterthought, Thoughts of Revenge, Angry Memories, and Understanding of Causes. We used the total score to provide an overall index of anger rumination. The ARS demonstrates adequate reliability in a college sample ( =

.93). A one-month test-rest reliability coefficient of .77 was reported by Sukhodolsky,

Golub, and Cromwell (2001). Convergent validity was supported by correlating scores on the ARS to other constructs: trait anger (.57). anger-in (.52), anger out (.43), and anger control (-.35) (Sukhodolsky, Golub, & Cromwell, 2001).

Vengeance Scale. The Vengeance Scale (Stuckless & Goranson, 1992) is a 20- item unidimensional self-report measure assessing attitudes toward revenge. Respondents rated each item on a 7-point scale from 1 (“disagree strongly”) to 7 (“agree strongly”) so that higher scores indicate greater acceptance of revenge. The Vengeance Scale has strong evidence of internal consistency ( = 0.92) and five-week test-retest reliability

(.90) for college student samples (Stuckless & Goranson, 1992). Concurrent validity estimates were respectable when the authors compared the scale scores to scores regarding endorsement of real and hypothetical vengeful situations. Convergent and divergent validity was assessed by examining the scale’s relationship to other constructs: empathy (-.38) and trait anger (.56) (Stuckless & Goranson, 1992).

Aggression Questionnaire (AQ). The 29-item AQ (Buss & Perry, 1992) is a self- report measure based on the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (Buss & Durkee, 1957) that assesses trait aggression across four subtraits: Physical Aggression, Verbal Aggression,

Anger, and Hostility. The Anger subscale demonstrated good internal consistency ( =

0.83) with a college sample, and 9-week test-retest reliability ranged from .72 to .80

(Buss & Perry, 1992). Construct validity has been supported by the relationships among the AQ subscales (r = .64-.67) and comparisons with similar measures of aggression

(Harris, 1997). Two modifications were made to the AQ based on recommendations in the literature. First, the 5-point scale from the original measure was replaced with a 6- point scale to eliminate the mid-point as recommended by Bryant and Smith (2001) and

Kalmoe (2015). Second, the response anchors from the original measure (i.e., “extremely uncharacteristic of me” to “extremely characteristic of me”) were replaced with the wording recommended by Kalmoe (2015) (i.e., “completely false for me” to “completely 14

true for me”). Kalmoe (2015) reported internal consistencies ranging from .72 to .79 with this version of the measure in a college student sample. The entire measure was administered; however, we were primarily interested in the 8-item Anger subscale. This subscale assesses the emotional component of aggressive behavior and is often used as a measure of trait anger.

Procedure

Potential participants were recruited through Sona, the online research system used by the School of Psychology, where they read a short description of the study and signed up if they wanted to participate. Those who signed up for the study were directed to an online consent form hosted through Qualtrics (see Appendix A). Once they provided informed consent, participants were directed to the study questionnaires, all of which were completed online through Qualtrics. Participants were informed at three points in the process that quality assurance checks would be used in this study (see below) and that those who failed these checks would be routed out of the study without receiving research credit: (1) in Sona before they signed up for the study, (2) in the consent form as part of the informed consent process, and (3) immediately before beginning the online questionnaires.

The demographic questionnaire was administered first, followed by the remaining measures in random order to minimize any potential order effects. Two quality assurance checks were used to identify participants who were not putting forth sufficient effort in responding (e.g., answering items without reading them first, responding carelessly).

First, two directed response items (e.g., “Please answer ‘agree’ to this item”) were blended into two of the longer questionnaires. Participants who answered either of these

directed response items incorrectly were routed out of the study without receiving research credit. Second, total study completion time was recorded. This information was examined during data cleaning so that participants who completed the study too quickly were removed. Participants who completed the study without failing the quality assurance checks received 0.5 credits upon completion, as the expected length of time to complete the study was 30 minutes. This study was approved by the university’s Institutional

Review Board (Appendix C).

- RESULTS

Data Screening

The electronic data file downloaded from Qualtrics initially contained 323 responses from undergraduate students enrolled at the University of Southern

Mississippi. Fifteen cases were removed after a visual inspection of the data revealed that they were missing responses on at least one entire measure. Next, 35 additional cases were removed because participants failed one or more of the two directed response items used to identify insufficient effort responding. Nineteen more cases were removed after it was determined that these participants completed the survey so quickly that they were unlikely to have been able to read the items before answering them (i.e., they completed the survey in less than half of the sample’s median completion time). Further examination of completion time led to the removal of 2 more cases where total survey completion time was more than four standard deviations greater than the median. Finally, 5 cases were removed for being over 25 years of age. This resulted in a final data set of 247 cases on which all analyses were completed.

Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alphas, and bivariate correlations among variables are reported in Table 1. All alpha coefficients were greater than .70, and the internal consistencies of the measures ranged from acceptable (.79) to good (.94).

Because the distribution of scores on each variable was positively skewed, log transformations were applied to normalize the score distributions. Unless otherwise indicated, these transformed variables were used in all analyses. In examining the bivariate relationships relevant to Hypothesis 1, trait anger and anger rumination were

positively related to relational aggression, and trait anger was positively related to anger rumination. With respect to Hypothesis 2, relational victimization and vengeance were positively related to relational aggression; however, relational victimization and vengeance were not meaningfully related.

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Measures

Variable Descriptives Correlation M SD  1. Trait Anger 19.91 6.99 .81 -- 2. Anger Rumination 38.85 12.49 .94 .55** -- 3. Relational 13.76 6.32 .79 .42** .43** -- Aggression 4. Relational 13.41 6.57 .80 .27** .33** .39** -- Victimization 5. Vengeance 59.93 20.28 .92 .36** .40** .48** .09 -- **p < .01. Primary Analyses

The two study hypotheses were tested through hierarchical multiple regression using Hayes’ (2018) PROCESS macro for SPSS. Each was tested separately using the simple mediation model (i.e., Model 4). To provide a robust method of estimating confidence intervals when variables are non-normally distributed (Field, 2013), bootstrapping was used in PROCESS to create 95% bootstrap confidence intervals based on 10,000 bootstrapped samples.

Anger Rumination as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Trait Anger and

Relational Aggression. Hypothesis 1 proposed that anger rumination would partially mediate the relationship between trait anger and relational aggression (see Table 2). The a pathway between trait anger (X) and anger rumination (M) was significant,  = .56, t(247) = 9.51, p < .001. This means that trait anger was positively associated with anger rumination. Second, the b pathway between anger rumination (M) and relational 18

aggression (Y) was significant,  = .25, t(247) = 3.63, p < .001, indicating that anger rumination was positively associated with relational aggression. Additionally, the c pathway between trait anger (X) and relational aggression (Y), without the mediator, was significant,  = .38, t(247) = 6.49, p < .001. Finally, the c’ pathway was significant,  =

.24, t(247) = 3.48, p < .001, meaning that trait anger (X) is associated with relational aggression (Y) while controlling for anger rumination (M). The indirect effect was .14,

95% CI [.051, .204]. Because the confidence interval does not include zero and the c’ path was significant, the hypothesis that anger rumination would partially mediate the relationship between trait anger and relational aggression was supported (see Figure 1).

Table 2 Model Examining Anger Rumination as a Mediator of the Relationship Between

Trait Anger and Relational Aggression

Path  SE t p a .56 .09 9.51 .0000 b .25 .04 3.63 .0003 c’ .24 .06 3.48 .0006 c .38 .05 6.49 .0000 Indirect Effects Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI X on Y .14 .04 .05 .20 Note. Bootstrap CI’s do not cross zero which implies a difference between c and c’.

b = .25***  = .56***

c’ = .24***

***p < .001. Figure 1. Observed Simple Mediation Model, Hypothesis 1

Vengeance as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Relational Victimization and Relational Aggression. Hypothesis 2 proposed that vengeance would partially mediate the relationship between relational victimization and relational aggression (see

Table 3). The a pathway from relational victimization (X) to vengeance (M) was not significant,  = .06, t(247) = .95, p = .34, meaning that there was not a relationship between these variables. The b pathway from vengeance (M) to relational aggression (Y) was significant,  = .46, t(247) = 8.77, p < .001. This indicates that vengeance was positively associated with relational aggression. Relational victimization (X) was associated with relational victimization (Y), evidenced by the significant c pathway,  =

.35, t(247) = 5.77, p < .001. Further, the c’ pathway was also significant,  = .32, t(247)

= 6.06, p < .001, indicating that relational victimization (X) was associated with relational aggression (M), even when controlling for vengeance (M). The indirect effect was .03, 95% CI [-.0237, .0856]. Because the confidence interval includes zero and the a pathway was not significant, the hypothesis that vengeance would partially mediate the relationship between relational victimization and relational aggression was not supported

(see Figure 2).

Table 3 Model Examining Vengeance as a Mediator of the Relationship Between

Relational Victimization and Relational Aggression

Path  SE t p a .06 .20 .95 .34 b .46 .02 8.77 .0000 c’ .32 .05 6.06 .0000 c .35 .06 5.77 .0000 Indirec Effec BootS BootLLC BootULC t Effects t E I I X on Y .03 .03 -.0237 .0856 Note. Bootstrap CI’s do not cross zero which implies a difference between c and c’. 20

 = .06 b = .46***

c’ = .32***

***p < .001. Figure 2. Observed Simple Mediation Model, Hypothesis 2

– DISCUSSION

The present study extended the literature on relational aggression in the peer relationships of college students by examining two potential pathways to relational aggression. Consistent with our first hypothesis, trait anger and anger rumination were positive predictors of relational aggression, and anger rumination partially mediated the relationship between trait anger and relational aggression. These findings are consistent with previous studies showing that trait anger is positively related to relational aggression in college students’ peer and romantic relationships (e.g., Dahlen et al., 2013; Prather et al., 2012) and with previous evidence that anger rumination mediates the relationship between anger and overt aggression (Anestis et al., 2009; Peters et al., 2015; Wang et al.,

2018). Supported by the general aggression model, a propensity to engage in relational aggression (outcome of decision-making process) is directly influenced by trait anger

(personal and situational factor) and anger rumination (internal state). In other words, elevated trait anger leads to increased anger rumination, which then leads to relational aggression. Ruminating on angry thoughts allows one to spend excess time thinking about aggressive thoughts and prevents one’s anger from dissipating. Of course, the cross-sectional design used in this study does not permit such a causal interpretation. That would require an experimental design. Moreover, establishing the directionality of the variables would require the variables to be assessed at different points in time before it could be determined that trait anger and anger rumination lead to relational aggression instead of some other directional pattern.

Contrary to our second hypothesis, vengeance did not partially mediate the relationship between relational victimization and relational aggression. Both relational

victimization and vengeance were positive predictors of relational aggression, indicating that students who reported more relational victimization and/or were higher on vengeance reported more relational aggression; however, we found no support for the prediction that vengeance mediated the relationship between relational victimization and relational aggression. Conceptually, these findings could be due to the Vengeance Scale measuring vengeful attitudes in general rather than vengeful behavior (Stuckless & Goranson, 1992) or vengeful attitudes in response to one’s experiences with victimization. Measures of attitudes do not always successfully predict behavior (Baumeister, Vohs, & Funder,

2007), and it may be that establishing a link from relational victimization to relational aggression through vengeance would require a different approach to assessing vengeance.

Before ruling out the possible role of vengeance in this relationship, future research might find other ways to measure vengeance (e.g., situation-based questions, behavioral observation). Instead of assessing participants’ general attitudes toward revenge, it might have helped to ask them to consider a time when they were victimized and assess vengeful attitudes in that context. It is also worth noting that the bivariate relationship between vengeance and relational victimization was not significant in this sample. Thus, there was no relationship between participants’ experiences with relational victimization and their vengeful attitudes.

Most of the research supporting a relationship between relational victimization and relational aggression has used child samples (Marsh et al., 2016; Wang, Zhang, Li,

Yu, Zhen, & Huang, 2015; Yeung & Leadbeater, 2007). Thus, it is important to note that the present findings provide further evidence that this relationship is present among college students as well. Participants who reported more relational victimization also

reported more perpetration of relational aggression. This may be the result of social learning processes that teach those who have experienced relational victimization that relational aggression is an appropriate behavior to engage in (Hanish & Guerra, 2002;

Kawabata, Tseng, & Crick, 2014; Sullivan, Farrell, & Kliewer, 2006).

Implications for Prevention and Intervention

The findings of the present study may be useful for both prevention and intervention strategies aimed at reducing the impact of relational aggression. One approach to prevention could involve identifying students at risk for engaging in relationally aggressive behavior and providing them with some form of psychoeducation, counseling, or skills training designed to provide them with healthier alternatives. The findings that both trait anger and relational victimization were positively related to relational aggression suggest that these variables might be considered as risk factors for relational aggression. The use of brief measures to identify anger prone students, as well as those experiencing relational victimization, could be helpful in guiding them to treatment options on campus before they have aggressed against others. Skills like distress tolerance, anger management, conflict resolution, assertive communication, and healthy coping should be considered by university counseling centers and other mental health providers as potentially beneficial resources.

With respect to intervention efforts, the present findings suggest that more anger prone students are more likely to be relationally aggressive and that anger rumination may play a role in this relationship. Given the availability of evidence-based anger- management interventions appropriate for college students (Deffenbacher, Oetting, &

DiGiuseppe, 2002; Karahan, Yalcin, & Erbas, 2014), it may be worth evaluating some of

these treatments for relationally aggressive students. Having evidence for two of the cognitive processes involved with relational aggression (i.e., anger rumination and vengeful attitudes), clinicians may find it helpful to test strategies focused on reducing these processes (e.g., mindfulness, thought-stopping). In addition, the finding of a relationship between relational victimization and relational aggression is consistent with the possibility that some subset of students experiencing relational victimization may be aggressing themselves. While the present study was unable to establish a directional relationship between victimization and aggression, our findings are consistent with the possibility that providing services to victims may help to reduce aggression. Specifically, providing victims of relational aggression with healthy coping strategies or other ways to work through their reactions may aid in preventing further aggression.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study has a number of limitations that should be considered when interpreting its findings and which may be helpful in guiding future research in this area.

First, the use of cross-sectional data limits the causal inferences that can be made as temporal precedence cannot be established with this study’s current design. Future studies utilizing experimental designs in which variables are assessed over multiple points in time are recommended. Second, all variables in the present study were assessed using self-report measures, which raises questions about the effects of potential bias, social desirability, and other factors that could affect the validity of the responses.

Including measures of social desirability, observable behavior, or peer-report measures may help to control for confounding variables and strengthen the findings. Third, the

Vengeance Scale may not have been the most suitable measure of vengeance for this

study since it assessed participants’ general attitudes toward revenge and not their attitudes about their experiences with relational victimization. Future research should explore other ways to measure vengeful attitudes or behaviors (e.g., priming participants to consider a time when they were victimized or thinking about their aggressor).

In addition to the suggestions noted above, future research should examine other potential cognitive processes that might be involved in relational aggression. Anger rumination was a partial mediator of the relationship between trait anger and relational victimization, and there are probably a number of other cognitive variables that could be relevant to consider (e.g., emotion regulation, forgiveness, moral disengagement).

Research should also consider other variables, like the ones mentioned previously, that may be helpful in understanding the pathway from relational victimization to relational aggression. Do experiences with relational victimization make emerging adults more likely to utilize relational aggression, or might there be other factors driving both victimization and aggression? Finally, this study focused on relational aggression and victimization in peer relationships. Future research should also investigate aggression and victimization in romantic relationships to determine whether the findings obtained here apply in that context. Non-college populations should also be sampled to see if our findings hold true in other populations.

Conclusion

Despite these limitations, the present study contributed to the small but rapidly growing literature on relational aggression among emerging adults. It provided additional support for the role of trait anger in relational aggression and offered initial evidence that anger rumination may be beneficial in understanding the nature of this relationship.

Additionally, it suggests that experiences with relational victimization and vengeful attitudes are both relevant to relational aggression even though the measure of vengeance used here did not help to explain the relationship between relational victimization and aggression. The high costs of relational aggression and victimization (Dahlen et al., 2013) suggest that it is worthwhile to develop prevention and intervention efforts aimed at reducing their occurrence and minimizing the harm they cause. Learning more about the variables that predict relational aggression and how they work should help to inform these efforts.

APPENDIX A – CONSENT FORM

PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Title: Anger Rumination and Vengeance as Mediators of Relational Aggression Principle Investigator: Alison Poor Email: [email protected] College: Education and Human Sciences School: Psychology

RESEARCH DESCRIPTION

1. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine relationships between aspects of your thoughts and social behavior.

2. Description of Study: Participants will be asked to complete online questionnaires about various aspects of their personality and social behavior. The study is completely online and will take no more than 30 minutes to complete. Participants who complete the study will receive 0.5 research credits. Quality assurance checks will be used to make sure that participants are reading each question carefully and answering thoughtfully. Participants who do not pass these checks will NOT receive credit for completing the study.

3. Benefits: Participants who complete the study and pass all quality assurance checks will earn 0.5 research credits; those who do not complete the study or do not pass all quality assurance checks will not receive research credit. Participants will receive no other direct benefits; however, the results of this study will enable researchers to better understand the role of personality in social behavior, contributing to the general knowledge in the field.

4. Risks: There are no foreseeable risks associated with participating in this study. If you feel that participation has resulted in emotional distress, please stop and notify the researcher (Alison Poor; [email protected]). If you should continue to be troubled by participation in this study, please contact the research supervisor, Dr. Eric Dahlen ([email protected]). Alternatively, you may contact one of several local agencies, such as:

Student Counseling Services

601.266.4829

Pine Belt Mental Healthcare Resources

601.544.4641

Community Counseling and Assessment Clinic

601.266.4601

5. Confidentiality: The online questionnaires are intended to be anonymous, and the information you provide will be kept strictly confidential. Any potentially identifying information will not be retained with your responses. 6. Alternative Procedures: Students who do not wish to participate in this study may sign up for another study instead or talk with their instructor(s) about non- research options. 7. Participant’s Assurance: This project has been reviewed by the Institutional Review Board, which ensures that research projects involving human subjects follow federal regulations. Any questions or concerns about rights as a research participant should be directed to the Chair of the IRB at 601-266-5997. Participation in this project is completely voluntary, and participants may withdraw from this study at any time without penalty, prejudice, or loss of benefits.

Any questions about the research should be directed to the Principal Investigator using the contact information provided in Project Information Section above.

Participant’s Name:

Consent is hereby given to participate in this research project. All procedures and/or investigations to be followed and their purpose, including any experimental procedures, were explained to me. Information was given about all benefits, risks, inconveniences, or discomforts that might be expected. The opportunity to ask questions regarding the research and procedures was given. Participation in the project is completely voluntary, and participants may withdraw at any time without penalty, prejudice, or loss of benefits. All personal information is strictly confidential, and no names will be disclosed. Any new information that develops during the project will be provided if that information may affect the willingness to continue participation in the project. Questions concerning the research, at any time during or after the project, should be directed to the Principal Investigator with the contact information provided above. This project and this consent form have been reviewed by the Institutional Review Board, which ensures that research projects involving human subjects follow federal regulations. Any questions or concerns about rights as a research participant should be directed to the Chair of the Institutional Review Board, The University of Southern Mississippi, 118 College Drive #5147, Hattiesburg, MS 39406-0001, (601) 266-5997.

______

Research Participant Person Explaining the Study

______

Date Date

APPENDIX B – INSTRUCTIONS AND DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

Introductory Instructions

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. The success of this research depends on the quality of the data you provide. Please be aware that quality assurance checks are used in this study to make sure that participants are reading each question carefully and providing meaningful responses. Participants who do not pass these checks will NOT receive credit for completing the study.

To make sure you receive credit, please make sure that you take the time to read each question before answering it.

Demographic Questionnaire

For this study, we are trying to collect responses from a wide variety of participants to ensure a representative sample. This requires us to limit the number of participants in certain groups (e.g., age, gender). Please answer the following questions about yourself so we can determine whether you are eligible to participate in this study.

If you are not eligible, you will be redirected to the Department of Psychology’s

Psychology Research Participation System (SONA) to sign up for a different study.

Age (in years): _____

What sex were you assigned at birth on your original birth certificate?

____ Male

____ Female

What is your current gender identity?

____ Male

____ Female

____ Transgender

____ Something else, please specify ______

Are you Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?

____ No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin

____ Yes, Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano

____ Yes, Puerto Rican

____ Yes, Cuban

____ Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin

____ Unknown or prefer not to answer

Which category best describes your race?

____ American Indian/Alaska Native

____ Asian

____ Black or African American

____ Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander

____ White

____ Some other race (specify ______)

____ Unknown or prefer not to answer

College Status:

____Freshman

____Sophomore

____Junior

____Senior

Cumulative GPA: _____ (please use the traditional numerical format; 2.67, 3.00)

Are you a member of a sorority or fraternity?

____Yes

____No

Do you live on campus or off campus?

____On campus

____Off campus

Which of the following best describes where you live while attending school?

____Dorm

____Greek house

____Apartment – on campus

____Apartment – off campus

____House – off campus

____With parent(s)

APPENDIX C –IRB Approval Letter

NOTICE OF INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD ACTION The project below has been reviewed by The University of Southern Mississippi Institutional Review Board in accordance with Federal Drug Administration regulations (21 CFR 26, 111), Department of Health and Human Services regulations (45 CFR Part 46), and University Policy to ensure: • The risks to subjects are minimized and reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits. • The selection of subjects is equitable. • Informed consent is adequate and appropriately documented. • Where appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provisions for monitoring the data collected to ensure the safety of the subjects. • Where appropriate, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of all data. • Appropriate additional safeguards have been included to protect vulnerable subjects. • Any unanticipated, serious, or continuing problems encountered involving risks to subjects must be reported immediately. Problems should be reported to ORI via the Incident template on Cayuse IRB. • The period of approval is twelve months. An application for renewal must be submitted for projects exceeding twelve months. PROTOCOL NUMBER: IRB-19-309 PROJECT TITLE: Social Relationships and Anger SCHOOL/PROGRAM: School of Psychology, Psychology RESEARCHER(S): Alison Poor, Eric Dahlen

IRB COMMITTEE ACTION: Approved CATEGORY: Expedited 7. Research on individual or group characteristics or behavior (including, but not limited to, research on perception, cognition, motivation, identity, language, communication, cultural beliefs or practices, and social behavior) or research employing survey, interview, oral history, focus group, program evaluation, human factors evaluation, or quality assurance methodologies.

PERIOD OF APPROVAL: July 19, 2019 to July 18, 2020

Donald Sacco, Ph.D. Institutional Review Board Chairperson

REFERENCES

Anestis, M. D., Anestis, J. C., Selby, E. A., & Joiner, T. E. (2009). Anger rumination

across forms of aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 192-196.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.026.

Bagner, D. M., Storch, E. A., & Preston, A.S. (2007). Romantic relational aggression:

What about gender? Journal of Family Violence, 22(1), 19-24.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-006-9055-x.

Bailey, C. A. & Ostrov, J. M. (2008). Differentiating forms and functions of aggression

in emerging adults: Associations with hostile attribution biases and normative

beliefs. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 37(6), 713-722.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9211-5.

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of

self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior?

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 396-403.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x.

Boon, S. D., Alibhai, A. M., & Deveau, V. L. (2011). Reflections on the costs and

benefits of exacting revenge in romantic relationships. Canadian Journal of

Behavioural Science, 43(2), 128-137. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022367.

Boon, S. D., Deveau, V. L., & Alibhai, A. M. (2009). Payback: The parameters of

revenge in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,

26(6-7), 747-768. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509347926.

Boon, S. D., Rasmussen, K. R., Deveau, V. L., & Alibhai, A. M. (2017). Resisting

revenge: An investigation of reasons for foregoing revenge in romantic

relationships. Personal Relationships, 24(3), 474-490.

https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12193.

Brewer, G., Hunt, D., James, G., & Abell, L. (2015). Dark Triad traits, infidelity and

romantic revenge. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 122-127.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.007.

Brown, R. P. (2004). Vengeance is mine: Narcissism, vengeance, and the tendency to

forgive. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(6), 576-584.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2003.10.003.

Bryant, F. B., & Smith, B. D. (2001). Refining the Architecture of Aggression: A

measurement model for the Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of

Research in Personality, 35(2), 138–167. http://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2000.2302.

Burton, L. A., Hafetz. J., & Henninger, D. (2007). Gender differences in relational and

physical aggression. Social Behavior and Personality, 35(1), 41-50.

https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2007.35.1.41.

Buser, T. J., Peterson, C. H., & Kearney, A. (2012). Self-Efficacy pathways between

relational aggression and nonsuicidal self-injury. Journal of College Counseling,

18(3), 195-208. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocc.12014.

Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of

hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(4), 343–349.

https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046900.

Buss, A. H. and Perry, M. P. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 63(6), 452-459. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.63.3.452.

Bushman, B. J., Bonacci, A. M., Pedersen, W. C., Vasquez, E. A., and Miller, N. (2005).

Chewing on it can chew you up: effects of rumination on triggered displaced

aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 969–983.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.969.

Chester, D. S., & DeWall, C. N. (2017). Combatting the sting of rejection with the

pleasure of revenge: A new look at how emotion shapes aggression. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 112(3), 413-430.

http://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000080.

Chester, D. S., & DeWall, C. N. (2018). The roots of intimate partner violence. Current

Opinion in Psychology, 19, 55-59. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.009.

Clark, C., Dahlen, E., & Nicholson, B. (2015). The role of parenting in relational

aggression and prosocial behavior among emerging adults. Journal of Aggression,

Maltreatment & Trauma, 24(2), 185-202.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2015.1002653.

Cota-McKinley, A. L., Woody, W. D., & Bell, P. A. (2001). Vengeance: Effects of

gender, age, and religious background. Aggressive Behavior, 27(5), 343- 350.

http://doi.org/10.1002/ab.1019.

Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial

behavior in the prediction of children’s future social adjustment. Child

Development, 67(5), 2317–2327. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131625.

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-

psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66(3), 710–722.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1131945.

Czar, K. A., Dahlen, E. R., Bullock, E. E. and Nicholson, B. C. (2011), Psychopathic

personality traits in relational aggression among young adults. Aggressive

Behavior, 37(2), 207-214. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20381.

Dahlen, E. R., Czar, K. A., Prather, E. & Dyess, C. (2013). Relational aggression and

victimization in college students. Journal of College Student Development, 54(2),

140-154. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2013.0021.

Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., & DiGiuseppe, R. A. (2002). Principles of empirically

supported interventions applied to anger management. The Counseling

Psychologist, 30(2), 262–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000002302004.

DiBello, A. M., Preddy, T. M., Øverup, C. S., & Neighbors, C. (2017). Understanding the

context of romantic partner relational victimization: Links between relationship

satisfaction, depressive symptoms, and alcohol-related problems. Psychology of

Violence, 7(4), 543-552. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000064.

Eftekhari, A., Turner, A. P., & Larimer, M. E. (2004). Anger expression, coping, and

substance use in adolescent offenders. Addictive Behaviors, 29(5), 1001-1008.

http://doi.org/10.5840/monist20149714.

Elshout, M., Nelissen, R. M. A., & van Beest, I. (2014). Vengeance is self-focused:

Comparing vengeful to anger-driven responses. Cognition and Emotion 29(7), 1-

17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.976181.

Elshout, M., Nelissen, R. M. A., van Beest, I., Elshout, S., & van Dijk, W. W. (2017).

Situational precursors of revenge: Social exclusion, relationship type, and

opportunity. Personal Relationships, 24(2), 291-305.

https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12185.

Fatfouta, R., Gerlach, T. M., Schröder-Abé, M., & Merkl, A. (2015). Narcissism and lack

of interpersonal forgiveness: The mediating role of state anger, state rumination,

and state empathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 36-40.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.051.

Field, A. P. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: And sex and drugs

and rock 'n' roll. 4th ed. Los Angeles: Sage.

Goldstein, S. E. (2011), Relational aggression in young adults' friendships and romantic

relationships. Personal Relationships, 18(4), 645-656.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01329.x.

Goldstein, S.E., Chesir-Teran, D. & McFaul, A. (2008). Profiles and correlates of

relational aggression in young adults’ romantic relationships. Journal of Youth

Adolescence, 37(3), 251-265. https://doiorg/10.1007/s10964-007-9255-6.

Gros, D. F., Stauffacher Gros, K., & Simms, L. J. (2010). Relations between anxiety

symptoms and relational aggression and victimization in emerging

adults. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34(2), 134-143.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9236-z.

Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of patterns of

adjustment following peer victimization. Development and Psychopathology,

14(1), 69-89. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579402001049.

Harris, J. A. (1997). A further evaluation of the Aggression Questionnaire: Issues of

validity and reliability. Behaviour research and therapy, 35(11), 1047-1053.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00064-8.

Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process

analysis. (2nd Ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

Hennessy, D. A., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (2002). The relationship between driver

aggression, violence, and vengeance. Violence and Victims, 17(6), 707–718.

https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.17.6.707.33719.

Kalmoe, N. P. (2015). Trait aggression in two representative U.S. surveys: Testing the

generalizability of college samples. Aggressive Behavior, 41(2), 171–188.

http://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21547.

Kawabata, Y., Tseng, W., & Crick, N. R. (2014). Adaptive, maladaptive, meditational,

and bidirectional processes of relational and physical aggression, relational and

physical victimization, and peer liking. Aggressive Behavior, 40(3), 273–287.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21517.

Karahan, T. F., Yalçin, B. M., & Erbas, M. M. (2014). The beliefs, attitudes and views of

university students about anger and the effects of cognitive behavioral therapy-

oriented anger control and anxiety management programs on their anger

management skill levels. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(6).

https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.6.2314.

Knight, N. M., Dahlen, E. R., Bullock-Yowell, E., Madson, M. B. (2018). The HEXACO

model of personality and Dark Triad in relational aggression. Personality and

Individual Differences, 122, 109-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.016.

Leki, E. F. and Wilkowski, B. M. (2017) Trait anger, neuroticism, and the hostile reaction

to provocation: Examining the hierarchical organization of affective traits in

context. Motivation and Emotion, 41(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-

9637-3.

Lento, J. (2006). Relational and physical victimization by peers and romantic partners in

college students. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(3), 331-348.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407506064200.

Lento-Zwolinski, J. (2007) College students’ self-report of psychosocial factors in

reactive forms of relational and physical aggression. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 24(3), 407-421.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507077229.

Linder, J. R., Crick, N. R., & Collins, W. A. (2002). Relational aggression and

victimization in young adults’ romantic relationships: Associations with

perceptions of parent, peer, and romantic relationship quality. Social

Development, 11(1), 69-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00187.

Loudin, J. L., Loukas, A. & Robinson, S. (2003), Relational aggression in college

students: Examining the roles of social anxiety and empathy. Aggressive

Behavior, 29(5), 430-439. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.10039.

Maldonado, R. C., Watkins, L. E., & DiLillo, D. K. (2015). The Interplay of Trait Anger,

Childhood Physical Abuse, and Alcohol Consumption in Predicting Intimate

Partner Aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(7), 1112-

1127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514539850,

Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., Parker, P. D., Parada, R. H., Guo, J., Dicke, T., &

Abduljabbar, A. S. (2016). Temporal ordering effects of adolescent depression,

relational aggression, and victimization over six waves: Fully latent reciprocal

effects models. Developmental Psychology, 52(12), 1994-2009.

https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000241.

Mathieson, L. C., Klimes-Dougan, B., & Crick, N. R. (2014). Dwelling on it may make it

worse: The links between relational victimization, relational aggression,

rumination, and depressive symptoms in adolescents. Development and

Psychopathology, 26(3), 735- 747. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579414000352.

McDonald, K. L., & Asher, S. R. (2013). College students’ revenge goals across friend,

romantic partner, and room- mate contexts: The role of interpretations and

emotions. Social Development, 22(3), 499–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

9507.2011.00650.x.

Morales, J. R., Ruh, J., & Werner, N. (2002). Adult aggression/victimization measure.

Unpublished manuscript.

Murray-Close, D., Ostrov, J., Nelson, D., Crick, N., & Coccaro, E. (2009). Proactive,

reactive, and romantic relational aggression in adulthood: Measurement,

predictive validity, gender differences, and association with Intermittent

Explosive Disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 44(6), 393-404.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2009.09.005.

Oka, M., Brown, C. C., & Miller, R. B. (2016). Attachment and relational aggression:

power as a mediating variable. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 44(1),

24-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2015.1105716.

Ostrov, J. M., & Godleski, S. A. (2013). Relational aggression, victimization, and

adjustment during middle childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 25(3),

801–815. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579413000187.

Park, A., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Miller, H. L. (2017). The effects of peer relational

victimization on social cognition: Rejection attribution bias or a more generalized

sensitivity to social pain? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(7),

984-1006. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516664418.

Parrott, D. J., & Zeichner, A. (2003). Effects of hypermasculinity oh physical aggression

against women. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4(1), 70-78.

http://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.70.

Peters, J. R., Smart, L. M., Eisenlohr-Moul, T. A., Geiger, P. J., Smith, G. T., & Baer, R.

A. (2015). Anger rumination as a mediator of the relationship between

mindfulness and aggression: The utility of a multidimensional mindfulness model.

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 71(9), 871–884.

https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22189.

Prather, E., Dahlen, E. R., Nicholson, B. C., & Bullock-Yowell, E. (2012). Relational

aggression in college students’ dating relationships. Journal of Aggression,

Maltreatment & Trauma, 21, 705-720.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2012.693151.

Rasmussen, K. R., & Boon, S. D. (2014). Romantic revenge and the Dark Triad: A model

of impellance and inhibition. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 51–56.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.018.

Scully, D., & Marolla, J. (1985). "Riding the Bull at Gilley's": Convicted rapists describe

the rewards of rape. Social Problems, 32(3), 251-263.

https://doi.org/10.2307/800685.

Shorey, R. C., Brasfield, H., Febres, J., & Stuart, G. L. (2011). The association between

impulsivity, trait anger, and the perpetration of intimate partner and general

violence among women arrested for domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 26(13), 2681–2697. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510388289.

Siewert, K., Kubiak, T., Jonas, C., & Weber, H. (2011). Trait anger moderates the impact

of anger-associated rumination on social well-being. Personality and Individual

Differences, 51(6), 769-774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.030.

Spielberger, C. D. (1999). Manual for the State–Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2.

Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

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

of the anger rumination scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(5), 689-

700. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00171-9.

Sullivan, T. N., Farrell, A. D., & Kliewer, W. (2006). Peer victimization in early

adolescence: Association between physical and relational victimization and drug

use, aggression, and delinquent behaviors among urban middle school

students. Development and Psychopathology, 18(1), 119-137. https://

doi.org/10.1017/S095457940606007X.

Stuckless, N., & Goranson, R. (1992). The Vengeance Scale: Development of a measure

of attitudes toward revenge. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 7(1), 25-

42.

Turner, K. A., & White, B. A. (2015). Contingent on contingencies: Connections between

anger rumination, self-esteem, and aggression. Personality and Individual

Differences, 82, 199–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.023.

Wang, Q., Bowling, N. A., Tian, Q., Alarcon, G. M., & Kwan, H. K. (2018). Workplace

harassment intensity and revenge: Mediation and moderation effects. Journal of

Business Ethics, 151(1), 213-234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3243-2.

Wang, X., Yang, L., Yang, J., Gao, L., Zhao, F., Xie, X., & Lei., L. (2018) Trait anger

and aggression: A moderated mediation model of anger rumination and moral

disengagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 125, 44-49.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.12.029.

X. Wang, L. Yang, J. Yang, P. Wang, & L. Lei. (2017) Trait anger and cyberbullying

among young adults: A moderated mediation model of moral disengagement and

moral identity. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 519-526.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.073.

Wang, S., Zhang, W., Li, D., Yu, C., Zhen, S., & Huang, S. (2015). Forms of aggression,

peer relationships, and relational victimization among Chinese adolescent girls

and boys: Roles of prosocial behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1264.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01264.

Werner, N. E. & Crick, N. R. (1999). Relational aggression and social-psychological

adjustment in a college sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108(4), 615-

623. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.108.4.615.

Wilk, J. E., Quartana, P. J., Clarke‐Walper, K., Kok, B. C., & Riviere, L. A. (2015).

Aggression in US soldiers post‐deployment: Associations with combat exposure

and PTSD and the moderating role of trait anger. Aggressive Behavior, 41(6),

556-565. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21595.

Wilkowski, B. M., Hartung, C. M., Crowe, S. E., & Chai, C. A. (2012). Men don’t just

get mad; they get even: Revenge but not anger mediates gender differences in

physical aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(5), 546-555.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.06.001.

Wright, E. M. & Benson, M. L. (2010). Relational aggression, intimate partner violence,

and gender: An exploratory analysis. Victims and Offenders, 5(4), 283-302.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2010.509649.

Yeung, R. S. & Leadbeater, B. J. (2007). Does hostile attributional bias for relational

provocations mediate the short-term association between relational victimization

and aggression in preadolescence? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 973-

983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9162-2.

Zhang, P., Roberts, R., Liu, Z., Meng, X., Tang, J., Sun, L., & Yu, Y. (2012). Hostility,

physical aggression and trait anger as predictors for suicidal behavior in Chinese

adolescents: A school-based study. PLoS ONE, 7(2): e31044.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031044