NARCISSISTIC RAGE 793 you rate your liking of the iuice that you ipant concems. les from the PANAS-X.res Results and Discussion .wh manipu ions,followed by the ma and dep Correlations among pendent variable e (ie st,the expenr ntered [R.con ted [R].dishonest [R].moral.malevolen the bitter gourd juice rated it as mu ch more bitter (M.72.SD n the participant ted the bitter gourd juice rated it as much more unpleasan ond their supp out 28 ld he in the next study n (the displaced-target c ood Prefer the pr ation condition exn ned much more ang M hat the id not like spicy foods at all.Furtherm e in order to d copa ”int d-target col tion,the com ways had note that read."Don't be a jerk and give me Thed' 001.d nd in the 34).F1.173) were ened to all ds.Specifically.you not I any evidenc Buffalo wild wings Mild and Bu Wild win of participants chose the hot e in th that the 9.0%did s dition.F(.173).2.P001.odds ratio (OR)3.58 ner)Befor I will (() tion (F 49).Together with the esults o alysi iv eintent and that participants disp ced their aggression to a cover t with a lid.Their choice of hot over mild o given a Food Taste Preferences Inventory "somewhat"to "very much"wher f the on a scale of I (n aalho)to 9(e pected liking by their coparticipant ("How mu n do you think 4 M SD tremely dislike)to 9 lextremtely like) well as ne p dislike for spicy food(ow much did you rely on their er left rticipant to make their of sa privately.Upon their retum.the study was concluded.the exper g0p<05."p<0 you rate the bitterness of the juice that you sampled?”) on a scale of 1 (not at all bitter) to 9 (extremely bitter), and liking (“How would you rate your liking of the juice that you sampled?”) on a scale of 4 (extremely dislike) to 4 (extremely like). Anger and depression were assessed by aggregating items for the Hostility and Dejection subscales from the PANAS-X, respectively (Watson & Clark, 1994), which was presented, as needed, to assess current psychological state. Finally, we measured impressions of trustwor￾thiness, as participants rated the presumed coparticipants on 12 interpersonal adjectives usinga1(not at all) to 11 (great amount) scale (i.e., likable, arrogant [R], friendly, genuine, trustworthy, self-centered [R], conceited [R], dishonest [R], moral, malevolent [R], considerate, and ethical), presumably to control for any biases. Aggressive-choice phase. The experimenter continued by stating it was then the participants turn to assign spicy food to the coparticipant. Participants were then told that they would assign this food either to their coparticipant (the original-target condi￾tion), or because their supposed coparticipant turned out to be allergic to capsaicin and could not taste it, to a participant that would be in the next study session (the displaced-target condition). They were also given the Food Preferences Inventory supposedly e-mailed by this other participant, which always clearly indicated that the person did not like spicy foods at all. Furthermore, in order to insure a “trigger” in the displaced-target condition, the comment section of the inventory from the supposed future coparticipant always had a written note that read, “Don’t be a jerk and give me something I don’t like!” The experimenter continued, Again, you were assigned to allocate spicy foods. Specifically, you will be allocating hot-sauce for them to sample. You will have a choice between Buffalo Wild Wings Mild and Buffalo Wild Wings Hot sauce. Just as you did, the person tasting the food you allocate will be required to ingest the entire amount. Note that the choice of food is completely up to you, and that you can select as little or as much as you want (provided it’s less than the 4 oz container). Before proceeding, you will have to sample both sauces in order to give you a sense of the foods. I will administer a very small amount of both the Mild and the Hot Sauce for you to taste. Both bottles were always full, and the experimenter adminis￾tered a taste of each sauce to the participant via a straw. The experimenter then instructed the participant to select one of the sauces, pour or spoon the amount they selected in a clean 4 oz container, and cover it with a lid. Their choice of hot over mild sauce constituted the key dependent variable of aggression. The participants were also given a Food Allocation Record, which asked them to rate both of the sauces they tried on heat intensity (“How would you rate the hotness of the sauce that you will allocate?”) on a scale of 1 (not at all hot) to 9 (extremely hot), and expected liking by their coparticipant (“How much do you think will the other person like the sauce that you will allocate?”) on a scale of 1 (extremely dislike) to 9 (extremely like), as well as inquired whether participants looked at the presumed copartici￾pants’ Food Preferences Inventory (which always indicated a strong dislike for spicy food (“How much did you rely on their Food Preferences Inventory when choosing the food sample for them?”) on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much). Finally, the experimenter left the participant to make their choice of sauce privately. Upon their return, the study was concluded, the exper￾imenter conducted the funnel debriefing described earlier, ex￾plained the need for deception in detail, and assuaged any partic￾ipant concerns. Results and Discussion We first present analyses of the manipulation check variables and experimental manipulations, followed by the main results regarding the impact of narcissism on aggression, anger, hostility, and depression. Correlations among dependent variables are shown in Table 5. First, the experimental manipulation of frustra￾tion via noxious stimulus was successful—participants who tasted the bitter gourd juice rated it as much more bitter (M  7.72, SD  1.40) than participants who tasted the tea (M  4.19, SD  1.95), F(1, 176)  184.9, p .001, d  2.1. Similarly, participants who tasted the bitter gourd juice rated it as much more unpleasant (M  3.54, SD  .82) than participants who tasted the tea (M  .24, SD  2.17), F(1, 176)  209.9, p .001, d  2.3 (no other main effects or interactions impacted these variables, all ps .28). Accordingly, a 2  2 ANOVA on anger confirmed that those in the provocation condition experienced much more anger (M  1.79, SD  .78) than those in the control condition (M  1.15, SD  .41), F(1, 173)  43.0, p .001, d  1.0. Similarly, participants attributed less trustworthiness to the presumed copar￾ticipant in the provocation (M  5.43, SD  1.58) relative to the control condition (M  7.87, SD  1.30), F(1, 175)  113.7, p .001, d  1.7. Finally, participants reported virtually identical, low levels of depression in the provocation (M  1.22, SD  .50) and in the control condition (M  1.17, SD  .34), F(1, 173)  .61, p  .44, d  .12. These analyses did not yield any evidence for other main effects or interactions, all ps .12. Did participants retaliate aggressively when provoked? Indeed, 26.1% of participants chose the hot version of the sauce in the provocation condition, whereas only 9.0% did so in the control condition, F(1, 173)  8.32, p .001, odds ratio (OR)  3.58. Moreover, the expected target of aggression did not matter much, with similar proportion of participants choosing the hot sauce in the original (20.2%) and the displaced target (14.8%) condition, F(1, 173)  .001, p  .98, OR  1.44, with no evidence of an interaction (F 1, p  .49). Together with the experimental results on anger and trustworthiness reported earlier, this analysis supports the conclusion that choice of hot sauce reflected aggres￾sive intent and that participants displaced their aggression to an “innocent” other when “triggered” by their minor annoyance. Furthermore, 90% of participants reported consulting the others’ Taste Preferences Inventory “somewhat” to “very much” when Table 5 Correlations Between Dependent Variables in Study 4 1234 M SD 1. Sauce Choice — .10 .06 .12 .17 .38 2. Trustworthiness .20 .91 .39 .08 6.66 1.89 3. Hostility .22 .63 .85 .46 1.48 .70 4. Sadness .09 .41 .52 .83 1.20 .43 Note. n  86 to 90 per condition. Control (provocation) condition cor￾relations appear above (below) the diagonal, with reliabilities presented in the diagonal. p .10. p .05. p .01. 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. NARCISSISTIC RAGE 793