792 KRIZAN AND JOHAR Method aboCerview Participants signed up for a study they thought wa supposed they would la have an op participants s with ally fiotiti for nant to tast participants to rate how much they like f from the ste categories (s nd we ing habits.Non ither a mildly bitte sweetened tea ( on)or vile this t vill give them ome information abou and e room for 30 had to tast both sauces before their choic and made the che d that the first step woud inolve the the oice onstitute the was th n the spic d eithe to a supposed I init Every part cipant will have a choice bet o thi f hi r fo you f theml.Th taste they fe s it fits in t Participant nd design Two hundred eight students parti signed to m at a m ginning of the seme used to t thi (o 68).Upor to th ory later in the d food selection made by the other partici ant (who a ut the par -subie d for bitter foods).The experimer reasine -oz containe ried tray back to the any nalyses.Th At this the ch the any key statisticala ister the Foo tions Questi edure and mea Participants came to a other people's food choic spects for them Giver tial that participants If no to finish the bitt st that ent (always of th ny were couraed todoso(all did).The exper the ex d th nlea le's reactions to foods ch en for them b The exn ete it as bonestly and acct as you can.Note tha exp another partici than left to p and then returned he roc basie taste categories)to the other person.The participants were indicated the perceived bitterness of what they tasted ("How wouldMethod Overview. Participants signed up for a study they thought was about people’s “food preferences,” specifically on how people react to other people’s food choices. In this vein, participants were to exchange information about their tastes with a presumed copar￾ticipant (actually fictitious), who was to assign a particular food item for the participant to taste. This allowed manipulating prov￾ocation; the participants were assigned to taste something bitter and were assigned (presumably by their coparticipant) to have either a mildly bitter unsweetened tea (control condition) or a vile, disgusting bitter melon juice (provocation condition). Subse￾quently, participants thought they were randomly assigned to give hot, spicy food back to a coparticipant and were given a choice to assign them either a mild or a hot version of a spicy sauce. They had to taste both sauces before their choice and made the choice without the experimenter in the room. This choice constituted the main measure of aggression. Furthermore, the participants were to assign the spicy food either to a supposed coparticipant who assigned them the bitter food initially (original-target condition) or to a supposed future participant (displaced-target condition); this constituted the manipulation of the intended target of the partici￾pants’ aggression and enabled the assessment of trigger-displaced aggression. Additional “taste reactions” questionnaires adminis￾tered during the study enabled the assessment of anger, depression, and perceived untrustworthiness of the provocateur, psychological reactions thought to underlie narcissistic rage. Participants and design. Two hundred eight students partic￾ipated in exchange for course credit. They completed measures of narcissism at a mass-testing session at the beginning of the semes￾ter, with NPI–16 used to measure grandiosity (  .60; Ames, Rose, & Anderson, 2006) and the HNS used to measure vulnera￾bility (  .68). Upon arriving to the laboratory later in the semester to participate in a study on “food preferences,” they were randomly assigned to one condition in a 2 (provocation: absent vs. present)  2 (target: original vs. displaced) between-subjects de￾sign. Upon the completion of experimental procedures, partici￾pants underwent a “funnel” debriefing procedure that probed them for suspicion with increasing levels of specificity. If a participant indicated any suspicion about the purpose of the study (i.e., even a vague sense of doubt about the veracity of the cover story), he or she was removed from the analyses. This resulted in the final sample of 182 participants. Inclusion of the removed participants did not change the outcome of any key statistical analyses. Procedure and measures. Participants came to a study they thought was about people’s “food preferences,” specifically about how people react to other people’s food choices for them. Given that it was essential that participants believed there was another coparticipant in the study, experimenters went to great lengths to suggest that another participant was present (always of the same gender). Following consent, the experimenter introduced the study as examining the “social dimension of eating,” aimed at assessing people’s reactions to foods chosen for them by others. The exper￾imenter then explained that there was another participant in the laboratory who would remain physically separated so as to not bias participants’ taste reactions. The experimenter added that each person would be randomly assigned to give a particular form of a food (from one of the basic taste categories) to the other person. The participants were told that they will first be assigned a bitter food by their (supposed) coparticipant, while they would later have an op￾portunity to give spicy food to the same coparticipant. Then, the experimenter asked the participant to complete a “Food Pref￾erences Inventory” in order to give some basic information about their tastes to their coparticipant. This questionnaire asked participants to rate how much they like foods from the basic taste categories (sweet, sour, bitter, salty, and spicy), with several examples provided for each, as well as filler questions about their eating habits. None of the participants indicated that they liked bitter food. Once finished, the experimenter took the participants’ inventory, said “Let me go and give this to the other participant—this will give them some information about your tastes. I will be right back,” and left the room for 30 s. Provocation phase. After returning, the experimenter ex￾plained that the first step would involve the participant tasting a food chosen for them by the coparticipant and that “bitter” was the assigned flavor. The experimenter added the following: Every participant will have a choice between a milder and a more concentrated version of the same taste category to allow for individual differences in taste preferences. In this case of bitter foods, the person assigning the food to you will have a choice between Black Tea or Bitter Gourd Juice [pointing out the bottles in front of them]. The person assigning the food can select any amount for the other person to taste they feel is appropriate, as long as it fits in the 4oz container. Later on, you will have a chance to assign a food to them. Note that all participants in this study will always sample the food item they are assigning to the other participant themselves first. In addition, the person tasting the food assigned to them will have to ingest the entire amount of that food. Any questions? At this point the experimenter left the room again to pick up the supposed food selection made by the other participant (who would have already presumably received information about the partici￾pants’ taste preferences via the Food Preferences Inventory, indi￾cating participants’ dislike for bitter foods). The experimenter waited 30 s and poured either 3 oz of unsweetened tea (the control condition) or bitter gourd juice (the provocation condition) in a 4-oz container with a lid, and carried it on a tray back to the participant. The experimenter explained the following: At this point you will sample the bitter food chosen for you by the other participant. They have chosen the Bitter Gourd Juice [Unsweet￾ened Tea]. Note that you have to ingest the entire amount. Following the tasting, we will administer the Food Reactions Questionnaire in order to assess your reactions to the food. When you ingest it, make sure to do so slowly and notice all the aspects of the taste that you can. Try to focus on the different sensations you are experiencing. If participants were reluctant to finish the bitter gourd juice (many were), they were encouraged to do so (all did). The exper￾imenter concluded, “Thank you for tasting. To get a sense of your reactions, please complete this Food Reactions Questionnaire. Please complete it as honestly and accurately as you can. Note that your responses are completely confidential.” The experimenter than left to presumably check on the coparticipant, waited 60 s, and then returned. The Food Reactions Questionnaire had embedded items to as￾sess key variables. As a manipulation check, the participants indicated the perceived bitterness of what they tasted (“How would 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. 792 KRIZAN AND JOHAR