Aggression, Anger, Emotion Regulation, Self-Control, Stress
Conditions
Keywords
attention bias, hostile attribution bias, hostile bias modification
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to see how people respond on a word completion task relates to how they behave and respond to situations in the real world. This is a two part research study. At time-point one, participants will fill out some brief personality surveys. They will also read several short scenarios and imagine how they would react and/or interpret these situations in real life. They will also complete a vocabulary task where they will sort word fragments based on type as quickly as they are able. Participants will be asked to return in 24-96 hours for part two where they will repeat a similar scenario reading activity as during time one and fill out a brief questionnaire about your recent behaviors.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALHBMT
Individual is presented with words with some letters missing and told to complete the word.
BEHAVIORALOther Training
Alternative to HBMT training
Sponsors
Army Research Laboratory
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR)
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Intervention model description
This is an online study. Volunteer assignment to each of the two experimental conditions is semi-randomized (i.e. random except that computer ensure equal sample sizes across experimental conditions). The randomized assigning of participants is done by the study web-page/program at volunteerscience.com. The computer program randomly assigned volunteers to one of the two conditions when they begin the study.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
1. Adult aged 18 and older 2. Located in the United States or other primarily English speaking country. 3. Active Amazon Account.
Exclusion criteria
* Less than 18 years old. * Not located in the United States or other primarily English speaking country.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Hostile Attribution Bias | 24-96 hours post HBMT | Adapted from the Angry Cognitions Scale (Martin and Dahlen 2007). Volunteers read hypothetical scenarios where another person acted aggressively but with unclear intent (e.g., You are driving through a residential area when someone backs their car out of a driveway and nearly hits you.). Volunteers respond to items (from Very Unlikely to Very Likely) to indicate how they would think about the situation (e.g., He/she did that just so I'd have to stop. He/she was trying to scare me.). Volunteers responded to one set (4 scenarios) at time point one and a second set (5 scenarios) at time point two. Reponses were summed within each scenario and averaged across scenarios to indicate level of hostile attribution bias. Individual scores at each time point could range from 0 (no hostile attribution bias) to 24 (high hostile attribution bias). |
| Driving Aggression | 24-96 hours post HBMT | State Aggression Survey: This survey is adapted from several others in the literature to measure variance along the normal spectrum of aggressive behaviors in daily life that the average person might display (Álvarez-García, et al., 2016; Deffenbacher, et al., 2001; Deffenbacher, J. et al., 2002). The survey specifically asks about driving behaviors (e.g., yelling at other drivers). Scoring is count of aggressive behaviors during reporting period. |
| Aggression On Social Media | 24-96 hours post treatment | Seven items adapted from the Cyber-Aggression Questionnaire for Adolescents by Álvarez-García et al. (2016). Volunteers reported at time point two how often (during preceding 24 h) they engaged in various aggressive online behaviors (e.g., posted rude comments about someone on a social network). Response choices ranged from 1 = never to 4 = always. Scores were recorded dichotomously to represent whether a volunteer reported any online aggression during the reporting period (i.e. never was recoded as 0 to indicate no aggression, and all other responses were recoded as 1 to indicate at least some aggression. A higher percentage of volunteers in a study condition reporting usage of aggression on social media indicates a worse outcome for that study condition. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Anger | 24-96 hours post HBMT | Trait Anger Scale: Brief measure of trait anger validated by Wilk et al., (2015). Scale (1-5, strongly disagree to strongly agree); Two questions regarding individual's perspective on their anger. Higher values indicate greater anger. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| HBMT HBMT: Individual is presented with words with some letters missing and told to complete the word. | 117 |
| Placebo Other Training: Alternative to HBMT training | 112 |
| Total | 229 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | HBMT | Placebo | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 40.5 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.2 | 36.3 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.4 | 38.4 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.8 |
| Race and Ethnicity Not Collected | — | — | 0 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 48 Participants | 49 Participants | 97 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 61 Participants | 58 Participants | 119 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 109 | 0 / 108 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 109 | 0 / 108 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 109 | 0 / 108 |
Outcome results
Primary
Aggression On Social Media
Seven items adapted from the Cyber-Aggression Questionnaire for Adolescents by Álvarez-García et al. (2016). Volunteers reported at time point two how often (during preceding 24 h) they engaged in various aggressive online behaviors (e.g., posted rude comments about someone on a social network). Response choices ranged from 1 = never to 4 = always. Scores were recorded dichotomously to represent whether a volunteer reported any online aggression during the reporting period (i.e. never was recoded as 0 to indicate no aggression, and all other responses were recoded as 1 to indicate at least some aggression. A higher percentage of volunteers in a study condition reporting usage of aggression on social media indicates a worse outcome for that study condition.
Time frame: 24-96 hours post treatment
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| HBMT | Aggression On Social Media | 15 Participants |
| Placebo | Aggression On Social Media | 24 Participants |
p-value: 0.004Regression, Logistic
Primary
Driving Aggression
State Aggression Survey: This survey is adapted from several others in the literature to measure variance along the normal spectrum of aggressive behaviors in daily life that the average person might display (Álvarez-García, et al., 2016; Deffenbacher, et al., 2001; Deffenbacher, J. et al., 2002). The survey specifically asks about driving behaviors (e.g., yelling at other drivers). Scoring is count of aggressive behaviors during reporting period.
Time frame: 24-96 hours post HBMT
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| HBMT | Driving Aggression | 3.0 Number of aggressive driving behaviors | Standard Deviation 3.6 |
| Placebo | Driving Aggression | 3.6 Number of aggressive driving behaviors | Standard Deviation 3.9 |
p-value: 0.027Regression, Linear
Primary
Hostile Attribution Bias
Adapted from the Angry Cognitions Scale (Martin and Dahlen 2007). Volunteers read hypothetical scenarios where another person acted aggressively but with unclear intent (e.g., You are driving through a residential area when someone backs their car out of a driveway and nearly hits you.). Volunteers respond to items (from Very Unlikely to Very Likely) to indicate how they would think about the situation (e.g., He/she did that just so I'd have to stop. He/she was trying to scare me.). Volunteers responded to one set (4 scenarios) at time point one and a second set (5 scenarios) at time point two. Reponses were summed within each scenario and averaged across scenarios to indicate level of hostile attribution bias. Individual scores at each time point could range from 0 (no hostile attribution bias) to 24 (high hostile attribution bias).
Time frame: 24-96 hours post HBMT
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| HBMT | Hostile Attribution Bias | 9.4 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.9 |
| Placebo | Hostile Attribution Bias | 10.8 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.9 |
p-value: <0.001Regression, Linear
Secondary
Anger
Trait Anger Scale: Brief measure of trait anger validated by Wilk et al., (2015). Scale (1-5, strongly disagree to strongly agree); Two questions regarding individual's perspective on their anger. Higher values indicate greater anger.
Time frame: 24-96 hours post HBMT
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| HBMT | Anger | 1.9 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.1 |
| Placebo | Anger | 1.7 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |