628 WHITE ET AL 60 62 ve Prime X Target interac ction 6 nces can mo 56 numbers of siblings are especially likely to ch hange agreeablen few siblings did not display shifts in agreeableness in res iblings (+1 SD eand was not moderated by current family size participants'nonfamilial social network.Thus,thes findings sug the standard emor of the mean. our hypotheses that.relative tion bk isalso interesting that participant s in the 29,p1 025.058.In contrast,f he self-protectionprime (relative to co tuitive at first.but it is in line with past research that ha ntrol)did not cha t th Mot aps in an attemp to avoid difficult interactions,and that p enin to thee they were growins up.The three-way Motive Prime Targe Study 4:Situa oup× similar patter n of results as the thre ay interaction with motive tamined the relation between threats of violenc et group,a sibl onal level.correl wing up.we also ndividu. s family g ory exper ocial etwork by asking bout their orld manipulation o number of close and each of these variables on nonsi In Sudies 1-3.we linked threats of violence to variation in Discussion 中 neasured how threats of violence affected a hehavior as iated eableness Second it demonstrated that these shifts are selec ality.willingness to lly different on wheth ndcdeireocarefo 1997-Roceas et al 2002.Soldz Vaillant 1999)As in Study 3 ated themselvess more than particip nts in the cono eable -directed primarily at member than participants in the contro condition.Moreover.the interac- of the ingroup.however, the same self-protection prime led to a significant de￾crease in agreeableness relative to the control condition,
.47, t(84)
2.29, p
.025, 2
.058. In contrast, for people with a small number of siblings (one standard deviation below the mean), the self-protection prime (relative to control) did not change agree￾ableness either when thinking about familiar or unfamiliar others (both ps  .70). Together these findings suggest that the Motive Prime  Target Group interaction observed in our initial analysis is strongest for people with a large number of siblings and non￾significant for people with a small number of siblings. In addition to number of siblings, we also asked participants about the subjective perception of the size of their family when they were growing up. The three-way Motive Prime  Target Group  Subjective Family Size interaction on agreeableness was marginally significant,
.62, t(84)
1.8, p
.059, and showed a similar pattern of results as the three-way interaction with motive prime, target group, and number of siblings. Whereas past research has suggested that there may be some￾thing unique about the size of one’s family growing up, we also measured the current size of participants’ family by asking partic￾ipants about their number of children and the size of their nonfa￾milial social network by asking about their number of close friends. The three-way interactions between motive prime, target group, and each of these variables on agreeableness was nonsig￾nifiacnt (ps  .3). Discussion Study 3 accomplished three major goals. First, it provided experimental evidence that threats of violence lead to shifts in agreeableness. Second, it demonstrated that these shifts are selec￾tive. Threats of violence do not always lead to increases in agree￾ableness. Rather, changes in agreeableness occurred in function￾ally different ways depending on whether participants were instructed to think of familiar versus unfamiliar others. When participants primed with threat thought about familiar others, they rated themselves as more agreeable than participants in the control condition. However, when participants primed with threat thought about unfamiliar others, they rated themselves as less agreeable than participants in the control condition. Moreover, the interac￾tion between threats of violence and target was unique to agree￾ableness, and there were no Motive Prime  Target interactions for conscientiousness, extroversion, openness to experience, or neuroticism. Finally, Study 3 demonstrated that individual differ￾ences can moderate the extent to which people change their agree￾ableness in the face of threat. We found that people with large numbers of siblings are especially likely to change agreeableness when threatened, by becoming more agreeable around familiar others and less agreeable around unfamiliar others. People with few siblings did not display shifts in agreeableness in response to threat. Importantly, the Motive Prime  Target Group interaction was only moderated by measures of participants’ childhood family size and was not moderated by current family size or the size of participants’ nonfamilial social network. Thus, these findings sug￾gest that affiliation with close others may be a particularly salient strategy for people from large families. The results of Study 3 supported our hypotheses that, relative to the control condition, participants in the threat condition would report being more agreeable with familiar others and less agreeable with unfamiliar others. It is also interesting that participants in the control condition reported being more agreeable with unfamiliar others than familiar others (see Figure 1). This finding might seem counterintuitive at first, but it is in line with past research that has found that people are strategically motivated to appear warm and likeable around unknown others (Jones & Wortman, 1973), per￾haps in an attempt to avoid difficult interactions, and that people understand that occasional deficits in agreeableness toward close others are both natural and generally nonthreatening to the rela￾tionship (Mills & Clark, 1994). Study 4: Situation-Level Threats of Violence and Interest in Helping Others We have examined the relation between threats of violence and agreeableness through correlations at the national level, correla￾tions between individual differences, and a laboratory experiment. In Study 4 we expanded upon our multimethod approach by conducting a field experiment, in which we sought to replicate and extend our previous findings using a real-world manipulation of threat and a behavioral measure of agreeableness. In Studies 1–3, we linked threats of violence to variation in agreeableness and found that people shift in agreeableness in response to threat. Because agreeableness was assessed via self￾report, however, it is possible that threats of violence merely shift self-perceptions of agreeableness without changing a person’s actual expression of agreeableness. Therefore, in Study 4 we measured how threats of violence affected a behavior associated with agreeableness—people’s willingness to help others. Helping is a useful behavioral index of agreeableness because, as described earlier, agreeableness has been liked to prosociality, willingness to help others, concern for others’ welfare, and the desire to care for others (Caprara et al., 2010; Graziano et al., 2007; Graziano et al., 1997; Roccas et al., 2002; Soldz & Vaillant, 1999). As in Study 3, however, we do not predict that threats of violence should lead people to become generally helpful with everyone. Instead, help￾fulness should be target-specific— directed primarily at members of the ingroup. Figure 2. Mean agreeableness of participants based on motive prime (threat vs. control) and target group (familiar vs. unfamiliar) at one stan￾dard deviation above and below mean number of siblings (Study 3). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean. 628 WHITE ET AL. 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.