The Differing Roles of Cognitive Empathy and Affective Empathy in the Relationship Between Trait Anger and Aggressive Behavior: A Chinese College Students Survey

Abstract

Empathy is essential for effective social interaction. People often express the belief that empathy is closely related to aggressive behavior, but empirical data has challenged this assumption. However, there is a lack of research that focuses on the role of empathy in the relationship between trait anger and aggressive behavior. The current research focuses on the roles that different components of empathy have performed in the combinations of trait anger-hostile cognition-aggressive behavior link and attempt to identify, with reference to Integrated Model of Emotion Processes and Cognition in Social Information Processing, at which step this may occur. Participants included 663 undergraduate students who completed self-report measures of Trait Anger Scale, Aggressive Behavior Questionnaire, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, and the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire. Results from correlation analysis show that there is no significant correlation between cognitive empathy and aggressive behavior (r = −.06) but do however suggest a significant correlation between affective empathy and aggressive behavior (r = −.19). Results from structural equation modeling reveal that different components of empathy perform different roles in relation to aggressive behavior. The moderated mediating model analysis results show that cognitive empathy played a moderating role in both the direct effect and the first stage of the mediating model of trait anger-hostile cognition-aggression behavior. The results of multiple mediation model analysis demonstrate that affective empathy only played a partial mediating role between hostile cognition and aggressive behavior. This study contributes to understanding of Social Information Processing Models (SIPMs) and provides insight into the relationship between empathy and aggressive behavior.

Keywords

affective empathy aggressive behavior cognitive empathy hostile cognition trait anger

Introduction

It has previously been observed that “Anger kills” (Williams & Williams, 1998). Trait anger, which is an important personality trait, is widely concerned with the prediction of aggressive behavior (Bettencourt, Talley, Benjamin, & Valentine, 2006). Studies show that although the anger-hostile cognition-aggressive behavior link is stable (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Van Dijk, Poorthuis, Thomaes, & de Castro, 2018; Wilkowski & Robinson, 2008), hostile cognition only has a partial mediating role (Hou, Jiang, Wang, & Li, 2017). There are still other personal or situational factors that influence the trait anger-aggressive behavior link. Empathy correlates with the experience of affective aggression (anger) or hostile cognition (Gantiva, Cendales, DãAz, & Gonzã, 2021). It is generally believed that empathy plays an important role in predicting aggressive behavior (Decety & Cowell, 2014; Miller & Eisenberg, 1988). In drawing on Social Information Processing Models (SIPMs) (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge & Crick, 1990), Lemerise and Arsenio (2000) assume that empathy has a great impact on the occurrence of aggressive behavior during the first (encoding of social cues) and fifth (response decision) steps. But empirical evidence reveals that the relationship between empathy and aggression (or specific types of aggression) was surprisingly weak (r = −.11) (Vachon, Lynam, & Johnson, 2014; Van Hazebroek, Olthof, & Goossens, 2016). In recent years, it is currently widely accepted that empathy includes cognitive and affective empathy, they are understood to be “two distinctly separate” capacities (Davis, 1983; Cuff, Brown, Taylor, & Howat, 2016), and may perform different roles in relation to separate aggressive behaviors (Buck, Powers, & Hull, 2017; Eres, Decety, Louis, & Molenberghs, 2015; Topcu & Erdurbaker, 2012; Zonneveld, Platje, Sonneville, Goozen, & Swaa, 2017), and cognitive empathy was found to be more strongly associated with aggressive behavior than affective empathy (Van Langen, Wissink, Van Vugt, Van der Stouwe, & Stams, 2014). In many studies with college students as subjects, it was also found that empathy has a good inhibitory effect on aggressive behavior (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004; Schaffer, Clark, & Jeglic, 2009; Stanger, Kavussanu, Mcintyre, & Ring, 2016), especially cognitive empathy (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004; Loudin, Loukas, & Robinson, 2010). In taking SIPMs and Integrated Model of Emotion Processes and Cognition in Social Information Processing into account, this research focuses on the different roles that different empathy components play with regard to combinations of trait anger-hostile cognition-aggressive behavior and also engages the steps through which this occurs based on a Chinese college student sample.

The Mediating Role of Hostile Cognition in the Trait Anger-Aggressive Behavior

Anderson and Bushman (2002) define aggression as behavior directed at an object, human, or animal that causes harm or damage. The General Aggression Model (GAM) assumes that personal and situational factors jointly affect the cognitive process and result in aggressive behavior (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Trait anger, as a particularly important personality trait, is widely considered to be concerned with the prediction of aggressive behavior (Bettencourt et al., 2006). Studies have shown that trait anger is associated with selective attention to hostile social cues, the tendency to interpret the behavior of others as indicating potential hostility, and the predisposition to ruminate over past anger-provoking experiences (Owen, 2011). Individuals with high levels of trait anger are more likely to exhibit deviant behaviors and even violent aggression (Leki & Wilkowski, 2017; Restubog, Garcia, Wang, & Cheng, 2010). In the trait anger-aggressive behavior link, social information processing (SIP; Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge & Crick, 1990; Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000) assumes that the individual’s interpretation and attribution of situational stimuli, and hostile cognition in particular, play a crucial role in the development of aggressive behavior. Some theoretical (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Van Dijk et al., 2018; Wilkowski & Robinson, 2008) and empirical studies confirm the partial mediating effect that hostile cognition has in the trait anger-aggressive behavior link (Hou et al., 2017).

The Moderating Role of Cognitive Empathy in the Trait Anger-Hostile Cognition-Aggressive Behavior Link

SIP (Crick & Dodge, 1994) and the Integrated Model of Emotional Processes and Cognition in Social Information Processing (Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000) assume that empathy influences the occurrence of aggressive behavior in the first step (the encoding of social cues). Cognitive empathy refers to intellectually taking the role or perspective of another person and seeing the world as they do (Davis, 1983; Gladstein, 1983). Cognitive empathy is essential for effective social interaction (Van Honk et al., 2011). In social contexts, cognitive empathy provides sensitive emotional information and may underlie manipulative personalities (Day, Mohr, Howells, Gerace, & Lim, 2012; McIlwain, 2003). As an aspect of personality functioning, high trait anger is maintained, at least in part, by cognitive processes (Owen, 2011). GAM assumes that personal factors and situational factors jointly affect the cognitive process and result in aggressive behavior (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Integrated Cognitive Model (ICM) holds that hostile interpretation, ruminative attention, effortful control, and trait anger interact to influence aggressive behavior (Wilkowski & Robinson, 2010). In a study of college students, it was found that cognitive empathy had the greatest inhibitory effect on aggression at a moderate level of threat (Richardson, Hammock, Smith, Gardner, & Signo, 2010). According to Gandhi, Dawood, and Schroder (2021), empathy is an important moderator. We therefore predicted that cognitive empathy interacts with trait anger because cognitive empathy manipulates trait anger; this interaction has a greater impact on hostile cognition and aggressive behavior than trait anger itself. This raises the question of how cognitive empathy affects the relationship between trait anger, hostile cognition, and aggressive behavior.

Dodge and Coie (1987) assume that in the first step of social information processing, there are more cognitive drivers—here it is conceivable that empathic cognitive components may influence the coding of social cues and the attribution of hostile cognition. Cognitive may underlie the hostile information-processing biases associated with high trait anger (Owen, 2011). Cognitive empathy means that individuals will be good at “mind reading,” and this will in turn enable them to more easily manipulate others and understand the consequences of their actions with regard to attributed mental states (Smith, 2006; Topcu & Erdurbaker, 2012). We therefore predicted that cognitive empathy moderates the relationship between trait anger and hostile cognition.

Although a large number of studies have confirmed that hostile cognition partially mediates the relationship between trait anger and aggressive behavior, trait anger still plays an important role (Hou et al., 2017). High levels of cognitive empathy enable bullies to know what hurts their victims, and this in turn enables them to manipulate when engaging in bullying behavior, the victim’s distress may only further reinforce the bully’s behavior (Sutton, Smith, & Swettenham, 1999). Individuals with low levels of cognitive empathy have a diminished ability to apprehend, appreciate, or tolerate viewpoints opposed to their own and tend to engage in aggressive behaviors (Kaukiainen et al., 1999; Lovett & Sheffield, 2007). We predict that cognitive empathy moderates the relationship between trait anger and aggressive behavior.

Multiple Mediating Effects of Hostile Cognition and Affective Empathy in the Trait Anger-Aggressive Behavior Link

Affective empathy refers to an experience of emotions that are consistent with those of the observed person (Hoffman, 2000). In social contexts, affective empathy underlies the motivation to behave (Day et al., 2012), and this correlates with the experience of affective aggression (anger) or cognitive (hostility) (Gantiva et al., 2021). So affective empathy is assumed to play a mediating role in helping to inhibit aggressive behavior (Graaff, Branje, Wied, & Meeus, 2012; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2011). According to SIP, emotional components (such as empathic responses) are important factors that affect individual behavior in response to the extraction and decision-making step (Dodge & Coie, 1987; Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000). ICM holds that individuals with low trait anger have the habit of adjusting the hostility dimension by using effortful control resources after hostile cognition; they therefore tend to show more empathic reactions and less aggressive behavior (Wilkowski & Robinson, 2010). Individuals with low affective empathy may have social skill deficiencies in response extraction and decision-making step and may also be unable to process social information accurately; in addition, they may also find it hard to understand and appreciate the emotions of others. They lack appropriate problem-solving skills and tend to view the intentions of others as anger and hostility. As a result, they are accustomed to dealing with social conflicts in an aggressive manner (Mellentin, Dervisevic, Stenager, Pilegaard, & Kirk, 2015). We therefore predict that, in the trait anger-hostile cognition-aggressive behavior link, affective empathy partially mediates the relationship between hostile cognition and aggressive behavior.

This Study

There is a lack of research that focuses on the role of empathy in the relationship between trait anger and aggressive behavior. Taking into account the SIP (Crick & Dodge, 1994), Lemerise and Arsenio (2000) assume that empathy has a substantial impact on the occurrence of aggressive behavior in the first (encoding of social cues) and fifth (response decision) steps. Some scholars assume that different components of empathy may perform different roles in the relationship between trait anger and aggression (Buck et al., 2017; Eres et al., 2015; Topcu & Erdurbaker, 2012; Zonneveld et al., 2017). Up until this point in time, it has been difficult to determine the specific role of different empathy components in the relationship between trait anger and aggressive behavior, along with the associated steps. To answer the question, we draw on the theoretical framework of the SIP models (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000) and hypothesize that cognitive empathy plays a moderating role in the first step of SIP; in addition, we also work on the assumption that affective empathy plays a mediating role in being interjected between hostile cognition and aggressive behavior.

To achieve this goal, the current research applies the technical superiority of structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine the relationship between variables in a multivariate context. In initially examining the moderating effect of cognitive empathy, we refer to Edwards and Lambert (2007) and draw on the mediation model of hostile cognition. We establish a moderation model within which cognitive empathy moderates both the mediator path and direct path. We then establish a multiple mediation model with the intention of examining the multiple mediating effects of hostile cognition and affective empathy in the trait anger-aggressive behavior link.

This study provides empirical evidence for SIPMs and also advances a new explanation of the relationship between empathy and aggressive behavior. It also provides new ideas and a theoretical basis for finding effective ways to control the aggressive behavior of trait anger individuals.

Method

Participants

Participants consisted of 663 undergraduate students (375 male, 288 female) who were drawn from two different Chinese colleges: 399 people from Southwest University and 264 people from Chongqing University. The subjects were between the ages of 18 and 24 years (M = 19.88, SD = 1.24). They broke down into 215 freshmen, 239 sophomores, and 209 juniors.

Procedure

We selected by cluster random sampling according to the subjects of their major (liberal arts, science, and engineering) from two multidisciplinary key comprehensive universities in China (top 50, more than 30,000 students are enrolled). In total, 800 undergraduate students were recruited from two colleges, and participants completed self-report measures in a quiet classroom. At least one trained postgraduate student was always present during data collection and instructions were provided verbally. Measures were conducted during an assessment that lasted for approximately 15 min. After this ended, we gave pen and candy to the participants in acknowledgment of their participation. Totally, 800 questionnaires were distributed and 703 were collected—a collection rate of 88%. After invalid questionnaires were omitted, invalid questionnaires namely that part of the answer was incomplete, or all the answers were consistent, or there were obvious false answers, a total of 663 were engaged.

Measures

Trait anger

The Trait Anger Subscale (TAS) compiled by Spielberger (1988) was used to measure an angry tendency within the individual, including stable individual differences in frequency, duration, and intensity of anger. The scale was translated into Chinese by Luo, Zhang, Liu, and Liu (2011).The scale consists of 10 items that divide into two subdimensions (anger-temperament and anger-reaction). Participants, with reference to a 4-point scale, indicate the extent to which the statement in each item describes their own characteristics—their responses ranged from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Individual responses to each item were then summed to produce a continuous trait anger total score, and higher scores were taken to indicate a higher trait anger. In the current sample, the alpha for TAS score was .84.

Hostile cognition

The Hostility subscale of Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) compiled by Buss and Perry (1992) was used to measure automation and long-term hostile thoughts and concepts that individuals exhibit in their interactions with others. The scale was translated into Chinese by Li et al. (2011), and the scale has good reliability and validity in the Chinese college students. The scale is an eight-item measure that requires participants to rate the extent to which they agree with each item. Their response ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and responses to each item were summed to produce a continuous hostile cognition total score—the higher the score, the higher the hostile cognition. The Hostility subscale (α = .76) showed acceptable reliability in the current sample.

Cognitive empathy

The Perspective taking (PT) subscale of The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) that Davis (1983) previously developed was used to measure cognitive empathy. It examines the tendency of individuals to understand and have other people’s psychology or opinions in real life. IRI was translated into Chinese by F. F. Zhang, Dong, and Wang (2010). Perspective-taking scales were used, which consisted of five items that ranged from 1 (does not describe me well) to 5 (describes me very well). Perspective-taking was calculated by summing the scores on each item for each participant, and higher scores represented a greater cognitive empathy. In the current sample, the alpha for PT score was .76.

Affective empathy

The Empathic concern (EC) subscale of IRI that Davis (1983) previously developed was used to measure affective empathy. It examines the extent to which an individual cares, warms, and sympathizes with others. IRI was translated into Chinese by F. F. Zhang et al. (2010). The empathic concern scales include six items that range from 1 (does not describe me well) to 6 (describes me very well). Responses to all items were summed to produce a composite score, with higher scores indicating higher levels of affective empathy. In the current sample, the alpha for EC score was .55.

Aggressive behavior

The Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ) compiled by Raine et al. (2010) was used to measure the aggressive tendency of individuals, and it is a widely used self-report questionnaire that assesses adult aggression. RPQ was translated into Chinese by W. L. Zhang et al. (2014) and applied the Chinese college students (α = 0.86). RPQ included reactive aggression (10 items) and proactive aggression (10 items). RPQ asks participants to answer on a 6-point Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 (not true at all) to 6 (definitely true). Responses to each item were then summed to produce a continuous aggressive behavior total score, with higher scores indicating greater aggression. In the current sample, the alpha for RPQ score was .91.

Data Analysis

Before the analyses were conducted, all variables of interest were inspected with the intention of identifying normality and potential outliers. Histograms did not indicate any outliers or skewed variables.

The differences of the main variables were tested in gender and correlation analysis was used to explore the correlation between the main variables. After all main variables were centered, we used the AMOS 21.0 software to examine the moderating effect of cognitive empathy, and we referred to Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes’ (2007) suggestion, which using bootstrap to examine whether the mediating effect of different subgroups varies with adjusted coefficient U. We then divided the participants into three groups on the basis of M ± SD of cognitive empathy and then used the Bootstrap method to subgroup analyze the differences of mediating effects among subjects who had different levels of cognitive empathy.

The low cognitive empathy group was defined as being one standard deviation below the mean of cognitive empathy, while the high cognitive empathy group was defined as being one standard deviation above the mean of cognitive empathy—the remainder, meanwhile, were categorized as the medium cognitive empathy group. We then examined the multiple mediating effects of hostile cognition and affective empathy in the trait anger-aggressive behavior link before providing bootstrapped estimates of the confidence interval (CI) around the indirect effect. Bias-corrected CIs for the conditional indirect effects were constructed on the basis of 5,000 bootstrap samples.

Results

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Variables

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables. Student’s tests indicated significantly higher means in girls on affective empathy (t = −3.04; p < .01), while there was no significant gender difference among other variables. Regarding the correlations among variables, significant correlations are observed.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations.

Variable	Trait Anger	Hostile Cognition	Cognitive Empathy	Affective Empathy	Aggressive Behavior
Trait anger	—
Hostile cognition	.40**	—
Cognitive empathy	−.77**	.11**	—
Affective empathy	−.03	−.79*	.33**	—
Aggressive behavior	.53**	.49**	−.06	−.19**	—
M Boys	17.98	20.45	15.94	21.36**	39.34
M Girls	18,360	20.92	16.19	22.10**	38.24
M Total	18.25	20.65	16.05	21.68	38.86
SD Boys	4.62	6.43	3.61	3.22	13.26
SD Girls	4.70	4.90	3.59	3.00	12.42
SD Total	4.67	5.21	3.60	3.15	12.91

p < .05. **p < .01.

The Moderating Effect of Cognitive Empathy on Trait Anger-Hostile Cognition-Aggressive Behavior Link

The results show that the mediation effect of hostile cognition was only significant in the medium cognitive empathy group (ab = .13, CI = [.08, .18], p < .001), with the mediating effect only accounting for 19.92% of the total effect)—the other two groups, meanwhile, had no significant mediating effect. This indicated that the mediating effect of hostile cognition was affected by different levels of cognitive empathy. Multiple model comparison results showed that different groups had significant differences in the measurement model (χ²/df = 12.75, p < .001) and structural model (χ²/df = 5.65, p < .001). It was specifically found that the medium cognitive empathy group fitted a simple mediation model. The low cognitive empathy group fitted a mediation model, and the moderating effect of cognitive empathy was not found to be significant (CI = [–.31, .01], p = .07). In addition, the mediating effect of hostile cognition on trait anger and aggressive behavior was not significant (CI = [–.12, .08], p = .94), although it was observed that cognitive empathy could affect aggressive behavior through hostile cognition (ab = .14, CI = [.01, .20], p < .05). Meanwhile, the high cognitive empathy group fitted the hostile cognition mediating model within which cognitive empathy moderated the direct effect and the first stage, χ²/df = 1.58, root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) = .03, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .99, adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) = .95, IFI = .99, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .99, comparative fit index (CFI) = .99 (Table 2).

Table 2.

The Mediating and Moderating Effects of Different Grouping Models.

Model	Mediating Effect			Moderating Effect
Model	Direct Effect CI	Indirect Effect CI	p	Direct Effect CI	Indirect Effect CI	p
Medium cognitive empathy group	[.35, .56]	[.08, .18]	.00	[–.13, .07]	[–.02, .04]	.56
Low cognitive empathy group	[–.36, .18]	[–.12, .08]	.94	[–1.05, .09]	[–.31, .01]	.07
High cognitive empathy group	[–.58, –.06]	[–.21, .00]	.10	[.31, .91]	[.14, .47]	.00

Note. CI = 95% confidence interval.

In relation to the high cognitive empathy group, analysis showed (see Figure 1) that the mediating effect of hostile cognition on trait anger and aggressive behavior was not significant (CI = [–.21, .01], p = .10). The moderating effect of cognitive empathy was however held to be significant (CI = [.14, .47], p < .001). As Figure 1 demonstrates, the path coefficients between trait anger and aggressive behavior (β = −.20, p < .05) were significant, and this was also true of the path coefficients between hostile cognition and aggressive behavior (β = .44, p < .001). The interaction terms of trait anger cognition to hostile cognition (β = .58, p < .001) and aggressive behavior (β = .57, p < .001) were also observed to be significant. It will be noted that cognitive empathy played a moderating role in trait anger-hostile cognition-aggressive behavior mediation model, specifically in moderating both the mediator path and direct path.

Figure 1.

Cognitive empathy as a moderating role in the direct effect and the first stage of the mediating model of trait anger-hostile cognition-aggression behavior in the higher cognitive empathy group.

The moderating effect of cognitive empathy and the nature of the interaction were clearly demonstrated by simple slope test plotting. We divided the participants into high and low levels of cognitive empathy groups on the basis of M ± SD of cognitive empathy. The interaction diagram (Figure 2) initially demonstrated how the influence of trait anger on hostile cognition was moderated by cognitive empathy. When the level of cognitive empathy was low (Z_{cognitive empathy} < 1), the increase of trait anger resulted in the individuals’ hostile cognition showing an upward trend (β = .33, t = −.34, p < .001). When the level of cognitive empathy was high (Z_{cognitive empathy} > 1), an increase in trait anger resulted in the individuals’ hostile cognition showing an upward trend (β = .60, t = .18, p < .001).

Figure 2.

The effect of trait anger on hostile cognition at high and low levels of cognitive empathy.

The interaction diagram (Figure 3) then demonstrated how the influence of trait anger on aggressive behavior was mediated by cognitive empathy. When the level of cognitive empathy was low (Z_{cognitive empathy} < 1), increases within trait anger meant that the individual’s aggressive behavior showed an upward trend (β = .31, t = −.02, p < .001). When the level of cognitive empathy was high (Z_{cognitive empathy} > 1), increases in trait anger resulted in the individual’s aggressive behavior demonstrating an upward trend (β = .53, t = −.13, p < .001).

Figure 3.

The effect of trait anger on aggressive behavior at high and low levels of cognitive empathy.

Multiple Mediating Effects of Hostile Cognitive and Affective Empathy on Trait Anger-Aggressive Behavior Link

After insignificant paths were eliminated, the multiple mediating model fitted the data well (χ²/df = 2.99, RMSEA = .05, GFI = .99, AGFI = .98, IFI = .99, TLI = .98, CFI =.99). Path analysis demonstrated that (see Figure 4) trait anger positively predicted hostile cognition (β = .46, p < .001) and hostile cognition positively predicted aggressive behavior (β = .23, p< .001). Meanwhile, trait anger positively predicted aggressive behavior (β = .50, p < .001, CI = [.07, .15]), CI does not include the value of 0 (p < .001). Hostile cognition therefore partially mediated between trait anger and aggressive behavior (mediating effect ab = .11, with the mediating effect accounting for 18% of the total effect).

Figure 4.

Multiple mediating effects of hostile cognitive and affective empathy on trait anger-aggressive behavior.

In addition, hostile cognition negatively predicted affective empathy (β = −.10, p < .05), and affective empathy negatively predicted aggressive behavior (β = −.19, p < .001). Meanwhile, hostile cognition positively predicted aggressive behavior (β = .23, p < .001, CI = [.00, .04]), CI did not include the value of 0 (p < .01). Affective empathy therefore performed a partial mediating role in relation to hostile cognition and aggressive behavior (mediating effect ab = .02, with the mediating effect accounting for 8% of the total effect).

Discussion

With the intention of finding the different roles that separate empathy components play in the trait anger-hostile cognition-aggressive behavior link, along with the steps that may occur as a result, we established two structural equation models with the intention of examining the moderating effect that cognitive empathy has on the first step of SIPM, in addition to the mediating effect of affective empathy after the generation of hostile cognition. The results partially support the SIP hypothesis and also provide a new explanation of the complex relationship between empathy and aggressive behavior.

The analysis results indicate that cognitive empathy moderated the mediating effect of hostile cognition on trait anger and aggressive behavior. This supported the ICM hypothesis, which assumed that there may be an interaction between cognitive empathy and trait anger, with this interaction affecting the relationship between trait anger and aggressive behavior (Wilkowski & Robinson, 2010). Cognitive empathy moderated the mediate effect of hostile cognition in two ways. First, it moderated the predictive effect of trait anger on hostile cognition, and this lent further support to the theoretical hypothesis of SIPMs (Dodge & Crick, 1990; Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000), which emphasize the influence of empathic reaction on the occurrence of aggressive behaviors during the first step of SIP (encoding of social cues). Second, it was observed that cognitive empathy moderated the direct effect of trait anger on aggressive behavior.

The results of subgroup comparison revealed the complex relationship between empathy and aggressive behavior. At different levels of cognitive empathy, cognitive empathy had varying effects on the relationship between trait anger and aggressive behavior.

In relation to individuals with low cognitive empathy, and this was consistent with theoretical research, cognitive empathy could not moderate the mediating effect of hostile cognition, and instead just affected aggressive behavior through the mediating effects of hostile cognition. Individuals with low cognitive empathy tend to evidence more hostile cognition and aggressive behavior if they have a high level of trait anger—this means that they can neither understand others well nor control themselves (this may be related to cognitive deficits and the level of effort associated with control) (Wilkowski & Robinson, 2008). In ambiguous situations, cognitive deficits make it easy for individuals to show hostile cognition and aggressive behavior, even the level of trait anger is low (Contardi, Imperatori, Penzo, Gatto, & Farina, 2016; Dodge & Coie, 1987). Medium cognitive empathy individuals aligned with a basic mediating model without cognitive empathy participation, and this demonstrated that most college students tend to judge the hostile in the situation directly without taking the views or wishes of others into account. Cognitive empathy and aggression were not significantly correlated in 69.8% of subjects, and this partially explains why some empirical evidence claims that there is a weak relationship between empathy and aggression (Vachon et al., 2014; Van Hazebroek et al., 2016).

The data of high cognitive empathy individuals aligned with a moderated mediation model. To be specific, when the individual’s trait anger level is low, individuals with high cognitive empathy find it easy to understand the intentions of others and come to see the world from the other person’s perspective—this person is less likely to adopt hostile cognition and aggressive behavior (Ding & Lu, 2016). When the levels of cognitive empathy and trait anger are both high, the individual’s understanding of the opinions and intentions of others does not offset the difficulty he or she encounters in attempting to exert emotional control—this is because of the high level of trait anger, and they accordingly show stronger hostile cognition and aggressive behavior. This result is inconsistent with previous studies that used empathy as an independent variable to discuss empathy and aggressive behavior. These studies further the belief that individuals with high cognitive empathy have a higher ability to take perspective and to understand and tolerate others, with subsequent reductions in hostility and aggression (Contardi et al., 2016). This result may seem surprising because it suggests that high cognitive empathy results in increased aggression. However, here it is important to acknowledge previous research that suggests proactive aggressive children are perceived by peers to be good leaders who care about others and are considered to be more “humorous” than reactive aggressive children (Dodge & Coie, 1987). Violent criminals exhibit higher anger, higher cognitive empathy, and lower affective empathy than non-violent criminals (Zheng, 2010). We therefore come to believe that aggressive individuals are not lacking in cognitive empathy; rather, the shortfall instead relates to affective empathy or the balanced development of cognitive empathy and affective empathy.

As expected, correlation analysis showed that hostile cognition was positively correlated with aggressive behavior and negatively correlated with affective empathy; meanwhile, affective empathy was negatively correlated with aggressive behavior, and this was consistent with previous studies (Gantiva et al., 2021; Zheng, 2010). Analysis conducted by multiple mediation models validates the hypothesis of some researchers, and the results demonstrate that hostile cognition mediates the relationship between trait anger and aggressive behavior (Mellentin et al., 2015) and can influence aggressive behavior by mediating affective empathy (Graaff et al., 2012; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2011). According to SIP, emotional components (such as empathic responses) are important factors that affect individual behavior with regard to the extraction and decision-making step (Dodge & Coie, 1987; Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000). ICM holds that individuals with high trait anger are more likely to form hostile and biased explanations. The individual’s persistent attention to hostile explanations reduces their ability to regulate emotions, and this in turn reduces their empathic reactions, which makes it difficult to understand other people’s emotions and increases the likelihood of aggressive behavior (Wilkowski & Robinson, 2010). Affective empathy can therefore be said to be the basis of presocial behavior (Batson, Eklund, Chermok, Hoyt, & Ortiz, 2007; Ho, Konrath, Brown, & Swain, 2014). Proactive and aggressive individuals are more likely to show empathy deficits (Mellentin et al., 2015).

To conclude, the present findings provided initial evidence that demonstrates that, during the first step of SIP, cognitive empathy performs a moderating role in the direct effect and the first steps of the mediation model on trait anger-hostile cognition-aggressive behavior link. Meanwhile, affective empathy mediates in the relationship between hostile cognition and aggressive behavior.

Limitations and Further Research

The present findings should be considered in the context of certain study limitations. First, we recognize that the results of questionnaires could not be used to support the proposition of causation—for this reason, future studies should consider using a validated laboratory paradigm to explore the role of empathy. Second, the potential role of empathy needs to be better explored. The observed effects could conceivably be specific to the particular attributes of participants. Future studies should consider other groups (apart from undergraduates), such as adolescents and adult social groups. Finally, SIP does not only emphasize the role of cognitive processing but also converges on the interaction between internal information base (knowledge schema, rules, experience, etc.) and external reaction. Future studies should therefore explore the internal information base and analyze the relationship between trait anger and aggressive behavior, while engaging with individuals who have different aggressive experience.

Supplemental Material

supplementary_material – Supplemental material for The Differing Roles of Cognitive Empathy and Affective Empathy in the Relationship Between Trait Anger and Aggressive Behavior: A Chinese College Students Survey

Supplemental material, supplementary_material for The Differing Roles of Cognitive Empathy and Affective Empathy in the Relationship Between Trait Anger and Aggressive Behavior: A Chinese College Students Survey by Qi Jiang, Ya-ting Yang, Chun-li Liu and Jia-wen Yuan in Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Qi Jiang

Author Biographies

Qi Jiang, PhD, is an associate professor in the Institution of Mental Health Education at Southwest University. His research focuses on the psychological and physiological mechanisms of emotion affecting social behavior. His interest is to develop individual pro-social behavior nurturing programs and promote human social development.

Ya-ting Yang is a graduate student of the Institution of Mental Health Education at Southwest University. Her research focuses on the social behavior development.

Chun-li Liu is a graduate student of the Institution of Mental Health Education at Southwest University. Her research focuses on the social behavior development and its impact on mental health.

Jia-wen Yuan is a graduate student of the Institution of Mental Health Education at Southwest University. Her research focuses on the social behavior development and its impact on mental health.

References

Anderson

C. A.

Bushman

B. J.

(2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27-51.

Batson

C. D.

Eklund

J. H.

Chermok

V. L.

Hoyt

J. L.

Ortiz

B. G.

(2007). An additional antecedent of empathic concern: Valuing the welfare of the person in need. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 65-74.

Bettencourt

B. A.

Talley

Benjamin

A. J.

Valentine

. (2006). Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 751-777.

Buck

Powers

S. R.

Hull

K. S.

(2017). Measuring emotional and cognitive empathy using dynamic, naturalistic, and spontaneous emotion displays. Emotion, 17, 1120-1136.

Buss

A. H.

Perry

(1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459.

Contardi

Imperatori

Penzo

Gatto

C. D.

Farina

(2016). The association among difficulties in emotion regulation, hostility, and empathy in a sample of young Italian adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1068.

Crick

N. R.

Dodge

K. A.

(1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101.

Cuff

B. M. P.

Brown

S. J.

Taylor

Howat

D. J.

(2016). Empathy: A review of the concept. Emotion Review, 8, 144-153.

Davis

M. H.

(1983). Interpersonal reactivity index. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126.

10.

Day

Mohr

Howells

Gerace

Lim

(2012). The role of empathy in anger arousal in violent offenders and university students. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 56, 599-613.

11.

Decety

Cowell

J. M.

(2014). Friends or foes: Is empathy necessary for moral behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 525-537.

12.

Ding

F. Q.

Z. H.

(2016). Association between empathy and prosocial behavior: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Advances in Psychological Science, 24, 1159-1174.

13.

Dodge

K. A.

Coie

J. D.

(1987). Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1146-1158.

14.

Dodge

K. A.

Crick

N. R.

(1990). Social information-processing bases of aggressive behavior in children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 8-22.

15.

Edwards

J. R.

Lambert

L. S.

(2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1-22.

16.

Eres

Decety

Louis

W. R.

Molenberghs

(2015). Individual differences in local gray matter density are associated with differences in affective and cognitive empathy. NeuroImage, 117, 305-310.

17.

Gandhi

A. U.

Dawood

Schroder

H. S.

(2021). Empathy mind-set moderates the association between low empathy and social aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(3-4), NP1679-1697NP. doi:10.1177/0886260517747604

18.

Gantiva

Cendales

DãAz

Gonzã

l. Y

. (2021). Is there really a relationship between empathy and aggression? Evidence from physiological and self-report measures. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(7-8), 3438-3458. doi:10.1177/0886260518776999

19.

Gladstein

G. A.

(1983). Understanding empathy: Integrating counseling, developmental, and social psychology perspectives. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 467-482.

20.

Graaff

J. V. D.

Branje

Wied

M. D.

Meeus

(2012). The moderating role of empathy in the association between parental support and adolescent aggressive and delinquent behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 368-377.

21.

S. S.

Konrath

Brown

Swain

J. E.

(2014). Empathy and stress related neural responses in maternal decision making. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, Article 152.

22.

Hoffman

M. L.

(2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

23.

Hou

L. L.

Jiang

Wang

H. Z.

C. R.

(2017). The relationship between trait anger and aggressive behavior: Based on the perspective of the integrative cognitive model. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49, 1548-1558.

24.

Jolliffe

Farrington

D. P.

(2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 441-476.

25.

Jolliffe

Farrington

D. P.

(2011). Is low empathy related to bullying after controlling for individual and social background variables? Journal of Adolescence, 34, 59-71.

26.

Kaukiainen

Björkqvist

Lagerspetz

Österman

Salmivalli

Rothberg

Ahlbom

(1999). The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and three types of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 81-89.

27.

Leki

E. F.

Wilkowski

B. M.

(2017). Trait anger, neuroticism, and the hostile reaction to provocation: Examining the hierarchical organization of affective traits in context. Motivation & Emotion, 41(5), 1-17.

28.

Lemerise

E. A.

Arsenio

W. F.

(2000). An integrated model of emotion processes and cognition in social information processing. Child Development, 71(1), 107-118.

29.

X. Y.

Fei

L. P.

Zang

Y. L.

Niu

Y. J.

Tong

Y. S.

Yang

S. J.

(2011). Development, reliability and validity of the Chinese version of Buss & Perry Aggression Questionnaire. Chinese Journal of Neuropsychiatric Disorders, 37, 607-613.

30.

Loudin

J. L.

Loukas

Robinson

(2010). Relational aggression in college students: Examining the roles of social anxiety and empathy. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 430-439.

31.

Lovett

B. J.

Sheffield

R. A.

(2007). Affective empathy deficits in aggressive children and adolescents: A critical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 1-13.

32.

Luo

Y. L.

Zhang

D. L.

Liu

Y. B.

Liu

Y. L.

(2011). Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of Trait Anger Subscale in college students. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 25, 700-704.

33.

McIlwain

(2003). Bypassing empathy: A Machiavellian theory of mind and sneaky power. In Repacholi

Slaughter

(Eds.), Individual differences in theory of mind: Implications for typical and atypical development (pp. 40-59). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

34.

Mellentin

A. I.

Dervisevic

Stenager

Pilegaard

Kirk

(2015). Seeing enemies? a systematic review of anger bias in the perception of facial expressions among anger-prone and aggressive populations. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 25, 373-383.

35.

Miller

P. A.

Eisenberg

(1988). The relation of empathy to aggressive and externalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 324-344.

36.

Owen

J. M.

(2011). Transdiagnostic cognitive processes in high trait anger. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 193-202.

37.

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

Hayes

A. F.

(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227.

38.

Raine

Dodge

Loeber

Gatzkekopp

Lynam

Reynolds

. . . Liu

(2010). The Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire: Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 159-171.

39.

Restubog

S. L. D.

Garcia

P. R. J. M.

Wang

Cheng

(2010). It’s all about control: The role of self-control in buffering the effects of negative reciprocity beliefs and trait anger on workplace deviance. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 655-660.

40.

Richardson

D. R.

Hammock

G. S.

Smith

S. M.

Gardner

Signo

(2010). Empathy as a cognitive inhibitor of interpersonal aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 275-289.

41.

Schaffer

Clark

Jeglic

E. L.

(2009). The role of empathy and parenting style in the development of antisocial behaviors. Crime & Delinquency, 55, 586-599.

42.

Smith

(2006). Cognitive empathy and emotional empathy in human behavior and evolution. Psychological Record, 56, 3-21.

43.

Spielberger

C. D.

(1988). STAXI-2: State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

44.

Stanger

Kavussanu

Mcintyre

Ring

(2016). Empathy inhibits aggression in competition: The role of provocation, emotion, and gender. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 38, 4-14.

45.

Sutton

Smith

P. K.

Swettenham

(1999). Social cognition and bullying: Social inadequacy or skilled manipulation? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 435-450.

46.

Topcu

Ç.

ErdurBaker

. (2012). Affective and cognitive empathy as mediators of gender differences in cyber and traditional bullying. School Psychology International, 33, 550-561.

47.

Vachon

D. D.

Lynam

D. R.

Johnson

J. A.

(2014). The (non)relation between empathy and aggression: Surprising results from a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 751-773.

48.

Van Dijk

Poorthuis

A. M.

Thomaes

de Castro

B. O

. (2018). Does parent–child discussion of peer provocations reduce young children’s hostile attributional bias? Child Development, 89, 1908-1920.

49.

Van Hazebroek

B. C.

Olthof

Goossens

F. A

. (2016). Predicting aggression in adolescence: The interrelation between a lack of social goals. Aggressive Behavior, 43, 204-214. doi:10.1002/ab.21675

50.

Van Honk

Schutter

D. J.

Bos

P. A.

Kruijt

A.-W.

Lentjes

E. G.

Baron-Cohen

. (2011). Testosterone administration impairs cognitive empathy in women depending on second-to-fourth digit ratio. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 3448-3452.

51.

Van Langen

M. A. M.

Wissink

I. B.

Van Vugt

E. S.

Van der Stouwe

Stams

G. J. J. M

. (2014). The relation between empathy and offending: A meta-analysis. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 19, 179-189.

52.

Wilkowski

B. M.

Robinson

M. D.

(2008). The cognitive basis of trait anger and reactive aggression: An integrative analysis. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 12, 3-21.

53.

Wilkowski

B. M.

Robinson

M. D

. (2010). The anatomy of anger: An integrative cognitive model of trait anger and reactive aggression. Journal of Personality, 78, 9-38.

54.

Williams

R. B.

Williams

V. P.

(1998). Anger kills: Seventeen strategies for controlling the hostility that can harm your health. New York, NY: HarperTorch.

55.

Zhang

F. F.

Dong

Wang

(2010). Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the interpersonal reactivity index -c. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 18, 155-157.

56.

Zhang

W. L.

Jia

S. W.

Chen

G. H.

Zhang

W. X.

, & School of Psychology, Shandong Normal University. (2014). Reliability and validity of Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire in college students. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22, 260-263.

57.

Zheng

J. H.

(2010). Research on the action mechanism of adult criminal comity on aggression (Doctoral thesis). China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing, China.

58.

Zonneveld

L. V.

Platje

Sonneville

L. D.

Goozen

S. V.

Swaab

(2017). Affective empathy, cognitive empathy and social attention in children at high risk of criminal behaviour. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58, 913-921.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.98 MB