ArticleAggressive behavior2026
The Independent and Combined Roles of Attentional and Interpretative Biases in Antisocial Behavior, Trait Aggression and Aggressive Responses Under Provocation.
Article in Aggressive behavior, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emotion regulation and social information processing as targets of a guided selective prevention app for emerging adults with a history of adverse childhood experiences: A randomised controlled trial.Internet interventions · 2026Article
- The Independent and Combined Roles of Attentional and Interpretative Biases in Antisocial Behavior, Trait Aggression and Aggressive Responses Under Provocation.Aggressive behavior · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aggressive behavior has been linked to biases in social information processing, including heightened attention to threat and hostile interpretations of ambiguous social cues. The extent to which attention and interpretational biases uniquely or jointly contribute to aggression under provocation remains unclear. The present study investigated the effects of attentional bias toward angry faces and hostile interpretation bias on aggression using both self-report and behavioral measures in a non-clinical sample. Participants (n = 67) completed an emotional attentional blink task and a hostile interpretation bias measure, alongside self-report indices of aggression and antisocial behavior, and an experimental measure of provoked aggression. Hostile interpretation bias was positively associated with self-reported aggression and antisocial tendencies, whereas attentional bias toward angry faces was selectively associated with behavioral aggression. Critically, these cognitive biases were examined as potentially independent, overlapping, or interactive contributors to aggression under provocation, and attentional and interpretation biases interacted to predict aggressive behavior under conditions of high provocation, such that individuals high in both biases displayed the greatest levels of aggression. No interaction effects were observed for self-reported outcomes. These findings support social information-processing models proposing that multiple cognitive biases jointly contribute to aggression and highlight the importance of considering situational provocation and outcome modality when examining cognitive risk factors for aggressive behavior and preventive cognitive interventions in at risk populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.