Personality pathways to aggression: Testing a trait‐state model using immersive technology

Abstract

Trait‐state models aim to provide an encompassing view of offender decision‐making processes by linking individual dispositions to proximal factors. In an experiment using an immersive virtual reality bar fight scenario, we propose and test a trait‐state model that identifies the pathways through which robust personality correlates of aggressive behavior, that is, agreeableness, emotionality, and honesty‐humility, result in intentions to aggress. Using structural equation modeling, we show how these personality traits relate to intentions to aggress via anger, fear, perceived risk, and anticipated guilt/shame. Additionally, we demonstrate superior validity of our virtual scenario over a written version of the same scenario by virtue of its ability to provide more contextual realism, to establish a stronger sense of presence, and to trigger more intense emotional states relevant to the decision situation. Implications for future decision‐making research and theory are discussed.

Trait Energy and Fatigue Influence Inter-Individual Mood and Neurocognitive Responses during Work Done While Sitting, Standing, and Intermittent Walking: A Randomized-Controlled Crossover Design

“…Similar interactions are also noted for trait and state mental fatigue, with low trait mental fatigue (individuals who are normally not mentally fatigued) reporting significantly higher feelings of fatigue after performance of mental tasks, results consistent with findings from a previous study [24]. These findings are in line with previous literature that has studied trait-state relationships for other moods such as anxiety [72], depression [73], and anger [74]. The current findings also support the mental energy framework proposed by O'Connor [75], as individuals who are low trait energy report significantly lower feelings of mental energy and motivation at baseline, and over the course of the 1.5 h protocol, the increases in mental energy and motivation are highly correlated (R = 0.90).…”

Crime, Choice, and Context

“…Rather than seeing morality strictly as a trait-like property of individuals, the authors offer a view of morality that is, at least in part, state-like, and grounded in context. This trait-state approach to morality builds on and extends other recent work that ties timestable properties of individuals to factors that operate in the moment of decision making (e.g., Van Gelder et al 2022).…”

Situational Moral Evaluations: The Role of Rationalizations & Moral Identity

“…While we identify one crime relevant person-situation interaction, others extend beyond moral identity and moral evaluations of crime opportunities and warrant serious future consideration. van Gelder et al (2022) recently agreed, reasoning that advanced explanations of criminal behavior should include both individual dispositions, “traits,” and proximal factors, “states.” Trait-state models capture the interrelatedness of the distal and proximal levels – individual dispositions influence decision-making through contemporaneous factors, such as perceived sanction risk, moral evaluations, and anticipated emotions (see also van Gelder and De Vries 2012). We see strong potential to integrate moral considerations into this framework.…”

“…Recent criminological advancements increasingly aim to better understand criminal behavior in context . This is evident from research on emotions and offending (Barnum and Solomon 2019; van Gelder 2013; van Gelder et al 2022), relaxing the strict “rational actor” assumption (Midgette, Loughran, and Tahamont 2021; Pogarsky, Roche, and Pickett 2017, 2018; Thomas and Nguyen 2022) and adopting a multilevel perspective on crime (Matsueda 2013; Thomas, Baumer, and Loughran 2022). Invariably, emphasizing context directs attention to the situations in which offending opportunities arise.…”