Personality, antisocial behavior, and aggression: A meta-analytic review

Jones, Shayne; Miller, Joshua D.; Lynam, Donald R.

doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.03.004

Cited by 450 publications

(424 citation statements)

References 102 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

320

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…the higher the score for Agreeableness, the lower will be the score for aggression. Therefore, the results corroborate the findings of previous studies (Bettencourt et al, 2006;Gleason et al, 2004;Jones et al, 2011;Jovanovic et al, 2011). On the other hand, the positive correlation between Extraversion and Physical Aggression does not confirm the findings of previous studies (Sharpe & Desai, 2001;Bartlett & Anderson, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

“…Some theorists argue that personality variables are important predictors of aggressive behavior (Anderson & Bushman, 2002;Carvalho & Nobre, 2013;Jones, Miller, & Lynam, 2011;Lau, 2013). Currently, the most common approach used to explain personality in empirical research is the GAM (Housie et al, 2013;McCrae & Costa Jr., 2004).…”

Section: General Aggression Model and Aggressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Agreeableness dimension (Factor I) has often been associated with aggressive behavior (Gleason, Jensen-Campbell, & Richardson, 2004;Jones et al, 2011;Jovanovic, Lipovac, Stanojevic, & Stanojevic, 2011;Lee & Egan, 2013;Miller, Zeichner, & Wilson, 2012). Agreeableness (Factor I) refers to behaviors directed toward the needs of others, including aspects such as trust, honesty, altruism, among others (Bettencourt, Talley, Benjamin, & Valentine, 2006).…”

Section: General Aggression Model and Aggressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Personality and aggression: A contribution of the General Aggression Model

Cavalcanti

Pimentel

2016

Estud. psicol. (Campinas)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to identify the direct and indirect existing relationship among personality traits on aggression of high school and undergraduate students from the city of João Pessoa, Brazil, using the General Aggression Model as the theoretical framework. The sample consisted of 218 students, of which 107 were high school students and 111 undergraduate students. The instruments used for data collection were as follows: Aggression Questionnaire, the Big Five Inventory and a Socio-Demographic Questionnaire. The main results showed direct effects of neuroticism (+), extraversion (+) and agreeableness (-) in physical aggression. On the other hand, indirect effects of neuroticism (+), opening (+) and agreeableness (-) in physical aggression, mediated by aggressive emotions have been found. These findings are discussed based on previous research and the General Aggression Model along with suggestions of research which have been conducted in an attempt to further knowledge in this area. Keywords

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

Section: General Aggression Model and Aggressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: General Aggression Model and Aggressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Personality and aggression: A contribution of the General Aggression Model

Cavalcanti

Pimentel

2016

Estud. psicol. (Campinas)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Antagonism is especially significant in narcissistic, histrionic, paranoid, and borderline PDs. Both disinhibition and antagonism contribute to antisocial behavior, aggression, ODD, ADHD, and IED (Gomez & Corr, 2014;Herzhoff & Tackett, 2016;Jones, Miller, & Lynam, 2011;Kotov et al, 2011;Wright & Simms, 2015). Importantly, all of these conditions comprise a broader super-spectrum, and recent research has elevated the "externalizing" label to denote this general dimension .…”

Section: Spectramentioning

confidence: 99%

The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): A Dimensional Alternative to Traditional Nosologies

Kotov¹,

Krueger²,

Watson³

et al. 2017

Preprint

508

937

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The reliability and validity of traditional taxonomies are limited by arbitrary boundaries between psychopathology and normality, often unclear boundaries between disorders, frequent disorder co-occurrence, heterogeneity within disorders, and diagnostic instability. These taxonomies went beyond evidence available on the structure of psychopathology and were shaped by a variety of other considerations, which may explain the aforementioned shortcomings. The Hierarchical Taxonomy Of Psychopathology (HiTOP) model has emerged as a research effort to address these problems. It constructs psychopathological syndromes and their components/subtypes based on the observed covariation of symptoms, grouping related symptoms together and thus reducing heterogeneity. It also combines co-occurring syndromes into spectra, thereby mapping out comorbidity. Moreover, it characterizes these phenomena dimensionally, which addresses boundary problems and diagnostic instability. Here, we review the development of the HiTOP and the relevant evidence. The new classification already covers most forms of psychopathology. Dimensional measures have been developed to assess many of the identified components, syndromes, and spectra. Several domains of this model are ready for clinical and research applications. The HiTOP promises to improve research and clinical practice by addressing the aforementioned shortcomings of traditional nosologies. It also provides an effective way to summarize and convey information on risk factors, etiology, pathophysiology, phenomenology, illness course, and treatment response. This can greatly improve the utility of the diagnosis of mental disorders. The new classification remains a work in progress. However, it is developing rapidly and is poised to advance mental health research and care significantly as the relevant science matures.

show abstract

“…En síntesis, la evidencia permite afirmar la existencia de dos dimensiones: (i) menor autoregulación de la conducta, asociada a impulsividad-hiperactividad, ausencia de ansiedad, inestabilidad emocional y un estilo buscador de emociones; y (ii) menor resonancia emocional y vinculación afectiva con los otros, (Barlett & Anderson, 2012;Bergheul & Collette, 2013;Jones, Miller, & Lynam, 2011;Le Corff & Toupin, 2009). En consecuencia, se adopta una mirada multidimensional, enfatizando el rol dinámico de la personalidad en la activación, agravamiento y desistimiento del comportamiento antisocial.…”

unclassified