THREATS OF VIOLENCE AND AGREEABLENESS 623 Threats of Violence and Aggression thought of their own death (Wisman Koolc.2003).Morcover To u ned.a functi groupcohesio generally.According to me research suggests that other people as ed with cgat山 Functional Shifts in Personality Characteristics oom.are liked less than red unde n h Along lines.it has been e.then on nent of Miller.Doob.Mowrer.Sears 1939 and ber z(1990 ing o ed that personality chara ristics are heritable latively cons 1993 nt (Berkowitz.1987 n a ality char after threats to the self or valued others (Kenrick Shee Kecent res 1993 infectious di and r hreatened them(Wilson.1989).Feeling threatened is also one of common 1990,Hc in extn essen.Coie.&Schu .2001).and children who An Vp 1982.T these findings suo st that p than en et a Threats of Violence and Affiliation the link be social aversio sometimes respond to threats of vio Functional Shifts in Agreeableness hed ved ahe n and affiliation seem to he dis roup me oming threats of violence.To the exten hese strategies.cor he (WattChapman.199).Mor nd un set o aggregatio omality ivasav 1999 Ger s thought to rep distract predators,and females and yo ng animals can gain pro haracteristics,agreeableness is most closely as dwi油bot ige of that humans are also compelled to on.Habashi.Sheese&Tobi s are inclined to come Past research has demonstrated that individuals low in agree and anx high Geary Flinn,2002 Scha chter,1959 Tay r et al 2000).a 2004:Martin,Wa pople have an increased desire to affiliate when they onsider th Olson&Webe Threats of Violence and Aggression To understand how humans respond to threats of violence, it is useful to consider how humans respond to dangerous or negative circumstances more generally. According to theories of classical conditioning, any stimulus associated with an aversive state will automatically elicit negative responses (Berger, 1962). Indeed, some research suggests that other people associated with negative circumstances, such as a stranger encountered in an uncomfortably hot room, are liked less than those encountered under neutral circumstances (Griffitt, 1970). Along similar lines, it has been proposed that aggression is triggered by frustration (Dollard, Miller, Doob, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939), and Berkowitz (1990) reviewed evidence suggesting that when a negative feeling or thought occurs, it can activate a host of related, negative memories, feelings, and behaviors. For example, participants asked to think about negative experiences were, compared with those who thought about neutral experiences, less willing to help a research assistant (Berkowitz, 1987). In addition to generally negative circumstances, other research has demonstrated that people respond in socially aversive ways to threats of violence from others (Duntley, 2005; MacLaren, Best, & Bigney, 2010). For example, homicidal fantasies most frequently occur after threats to the self or valued others (Kenrick & Sheets, 1993), and women are most often motivated to murder their husbands following a history in which the husband has abused and threatened them (Wilson, 1989). Feeling threatened is also one of the most common causes of aggression in young children (Dodge, Price, Bachorowski, & Newman, 1990; Hubbard, Dodge, Cil￾lessen, Coie, & Schwartz, 2001), and children who view the world as hostile are more likely to initiate aggression (Dodge & Frame, 1982). Together, these findings suggest that people who feel threatened will be inclined to act in socially aversive ways. Threats of Violence and Affiliation Despite the link between threats of violence and social aversion reviewed above, several other lines of research suggest a more complicated story: People sometimes respond to threats of vio￾lence with social affiliation. Across a diverse range of animal species, aggregation, or diminished physical distance between group members, has been found to be a common strategy for surviving threats of violence (Crook, 1960; Darling, 1937; Kraus, 1994; Scott, 1945; Stankowich, 2003). While aggregation can create large groups that are easy targets for predators, increasing group size also reduces the likelihood of any one individual being attacked (Watt & Chapman, 1998). Moreover, aggregation has several other advantages—it gives individuals the opportunity to work together to fight off predators, it can serve to confuse and distract predators, and females and young animals can gain pro￾tection from larger males (Werner & Dyer, 1992). Given the apparent benefits of an aggregation strategy across a wide range of animal species, it is possible that humans are also compelled to aggregate in the presence of threats. Indeed, some evidence suggests that humans are inclined to come together under threat. For example, the stress and anxiety produced by dangerous situations tends to increase the desire to be near others (Geary & Flinn, 2002; Schachter, 1959; Taylor et al., 2000), and people have an increased desire to affiliate when they consider the thought of their own death (Wisman & Koole, 2003). Moreover, people are more inclined to conform to others’ opinions when threat￾ened, a functional shift in behavior that could enhance group cohesion and help prevent standing out from the crowd (Griskevicius et al., 2006). Together, these findings suggest that people who feel threat￾ened sometimes act in socially affiliative ways. Functional Shifts in Personality Characteristics If shifts toward social aversion or affiliation can be successful strategies for surviving threats of violence, then one component of enacting these strategies might involve functional shifts in person￾ality characteristics and social behavior. Although past research has demonstrated that personality characteristics are heritable, arise early in development, are relatively consistent from situation to situation, and are relatively consistent across the life span (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003; Carey, 2003; Goldberg, 1993; Jang, Livesley, & Vernon, 1996; John, Caspi, Robins, & Moffitt, 1994; Loehlin, McCrae, Costa, & John, 1998), it is also true that personality characteristics can shift as a function of subtle situa￾tional changes (Funder, 2006; Funder & Colvin, 1991; Furr & Funder, 2004; Sherman, Nave, & Funder, 2010). Recent research has suggested that personality characteristics vary in functional ways with environmental circumstances. In a compre￾hensive analysis of the relation between infectious disease and per￾sonality around the world, Schaller and Murray (2008) found that as disease prevalence in a geographic region increased, there was a correspondent decrease in extroversion and openness. These changes are thought to be functional, as they can help limit contact with people or places that potentially carry disease. An experimental study found a similar pattern of results at the individual level. People who were exposed to pictures of sick others later reported lower levels of extroversion and openness to new experience than people exposed to neutral pictures (Mortensen et al., 2010). Given the relationship be￾tween disease threat and personality characteristics, there is reason to suspect that analogous shifts in personality characteristics might be found in response to threats of violence. Functional Shifts in Agreeableness As reviewed above, aggression and affiliation seem to be dis￾tinct strategies for overcoming threats of violence. To the extent that functional shifts in personality characteristics can promote these strategies, corresponding shifts in specific personality char￾acteristics may occur following these threats. The “Big Five” refers to a comprehensive and universal set of characteristics thought to represent the basic dimensions of per￾sonality (Costa & McCrae, 1992; John & Srivastava, 1999; Gold￾berg, 1993; McCrae & John, 1992). Of the Big Five personality characteristics, agreeableness is most closely associated with both aggression and affiliation—as it is connected to interpersonal cooperation and conflict (Gleason, Jensen-Campbell, & Richard￾son, 2004; Graziano, Habashi, Sheese, & Tobin, 2007; Jensen￾Campbell & Graziano, 2001; John & Srivastava, 1999). Past research has demonstrated that individuals low in agree￾ableness are more aggressive, have higher levels of trait anger, higher levels of revenge seeking, and greater interpersonal hostility (Gleason et al., 2004; Martin, Watson, & Wan, 2000; Nettle & Liddle, 2008; Olson & Weber, 2004). Moreover, individual dif￾THREATS OF VIOLENCE AND AGREEABLENESS 623 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly