Hostile Bias Modification Training Online Study II
Phase: NA
Conditions: Aggression, Anger, Emotion Regulation, Self-Control, Stress
Sponsor: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR)

WRAIR 2628-Hostile Bias Modification Training Online Study II-V4-16-SEP-19 
 
Page 1 of 54 
 
1 
 
MASTER INDEX PAGES 
 
Protocol Title: 
HBMT Online Study II 
 
WRAIR IRB Protocol Number:  
2628 
 
Version # and Date: 
Version 4, 16-SEP- 2019 
 
Principal Investigator (PI):  
Jeffrey M. Osgood, Ph.D., CPT, MS, USA, WRAIR 
 
Military Psychiatry  
 
Center for Military Psychiatry and Neuroscience  
 
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research 
 
503 Robert Grant Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910-7500 
 
Phone: 301-319-7475  
 
E-mail: Jeffrey.m.osgood.mil@mail.mil  
 
Associate Investigators (AIs): 
Phillip J. Quartana, Ph.D. 
 
Military Psychiatry  
 
Center for Military Psychiatry and Neuroscience  
 
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research 
 
503 Robert Grant Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910-7500 
Phone: 301-319-9777 
Email: Phillip.j.quartana2.civ@mail.mil 
 
 
Sue E. Kase, Ph.D. 
CCDC Army Research Laboratory  
B4508 
6483 Wayberry Road 
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005  
Phone: 410-278-9762 
Email: sue.e.kase.civ@mail.mil 
 
Erin Zaroukian, Ph.D. 
CCDC Army Research Laboratory  
B4508 
6483 Wayberry Road 
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 21005 
Phone: 410-278-3203 
Email: erin.g.zaroukian.civ@mail.mil 
 
Morgan A. Conway, Ph.D. 
Military Psychiatry 
Center for Military Psychiatry and Neuroscience 
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research 
503 Robert Grant Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910-7500 
Phone: 301-319-7211 
E-mail: morgan.a.conway2.ctr@mail.mil 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 2 of 54 
 
2 
 
 
Study Staff: 
Jayne Holzinger, M.A., B.S. 
Military Psychiatry 
Center for Military Psychiatry and Neuroscience 
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research 
503 Robert Grant Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910-7500 
Phone: (301) 471-5264 
E-mail: Jayne.b.holzinger.ctr@mail.mil 
 
 
Hunter Yates, B.S. 
 
Military Psychiatry  
 
Center for Military Psychiatry and Neuroscience  
 
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research 
 
503 Robert Grant Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910-7500 
 
 
 
 
 
Phone: (301) 319-2029 
Email: hunter.k.yates.ctr@mail.mil 
 
 
 
Study Location:  
Online  
 
 
 
Laboratories: 
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research 
 
Army Research Laboratory 
 
Sponsor: 
Center for Military Psychiatry and Neuroscience- Research 
 
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research 
 
503 Robert Grant Ave. 
 
Silver Spring, MD 20910 
 
  
Source of Funding: 
 
 
Military Operational Medicine Research Program RAD III, 
 
 
 
 
 
USAMRMC 
 
Approximate Study Duration: 
Five Years 
 
Study Volunteers:  
N = 400 
 
Institutional Review Boards(s): 
WRAIR Institutional Review Board 
Director, Human Subjects Protection Branch 
503 Robert Grant Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910 
PH: 301-319-9940 
FX: 301-319-9961 
 
E-mail: usarmy.detrick.medcom-wrair.mbx.hspb@mail.mil 
 
FWA#: 00000015; IRB#: 00000794 
 
DTIC Search: 
Search Terms: aggression, anger, attention bias, emotion 
regulation, go/ no-go task, hostile attribution bias, hostile 
bias modification, self-control, stress 
 
Date:  
16 September 2019 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 3 of 54 
 
3 
 
 
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 
Information and data included in this document contain privileged and/or proprietary 
information, which is the property of the United States Army. No person is authorized to make it 
public without express written permission of the United States Army. These restrictions on 
disclosure will apply equally to all future information, which is indicated as privileged or 
proprietary. 
 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 4 of 54 
 
4 
 
1 Principal Investigator Agreement for Exempt Research 
 
Principal Investigator Agreement:  
 
1. I agree to follow this protocol version as approved by the IRBs/ERCs.  
 
2. I will conduct the study in accordance with applicable IRB/ERC requirements, Federal 
regulations, and state and local laws to maintain the protection of the rights and welfare 
of study participants.  
 
3. I certify that I, and the study staff, have received the requisite training to conduct this 
research protocol.  
 
4. I will not modify the protocol without first obtaining an IRB/ERC approved amendment 
and new protocol version unless it is necessary to protect the health and welfare of study 
participants.  
 
5. I, or the study staff, do not have access to the code linking a participant and his/her 
specimen (or data) and will make no attempts to individually identify a study participant. 
Should I, or the study staff, gain access to the code, I will promptly notify the 
IRB(s)/ERC(s).  
 
6. I will ensure that the data (and/or specimens) are maintained in accordance with the data 
(and/or specimen) disposition outlined in the protocol. Any modifications to this plan 
should first be reviewed and approved by the applicable IRBs/ERCs.   
 
7. I will promptly report changes to the research or unanticipated problems to the WRAIR 
IRB immediately via the WRAIR Human Subjects Protection Branch at (301) 319-9940 
(during duty hours) or to the usarmy.detrick.medcom-wrair.mbx.hspb@mail.mil and 
submit a written report within 10 working days of knowledge of the event.  
 
8. I will prepare continuing review reports at an interval established by the IRB/ERC, and a 
study closure report when all research activities are completed.  
 
9. I will immediately report to the WRAIR Human Subjects Protection Branch knowledge 
of any pending compliance inspection by any outside governmental agency.  
 
10. I agree to maintain adequate and accurate records in accordance with IRB policies, 
Federal, state and local laws and regulations. 
 
 
 
 
________________________________  
____________________ 
Printed Name/Signature   
 
 
Date  
 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 5 of 54 
 
5 
 
 
Table of Contents 
 
 
Master Index Pages………………………………………………………………….. 
1 
1 
Principal Investigator Agreement…………………………………………………... 
4 
 
Abbreviations Used in Protocol…………………………………………………….. 
8 
2 
Precis………………………………………………………………………………….. 
9 
3 
Study Summary…………………………………………………………………….... 
10 
 
3.1 
Objectives……………………………………………………………………... 10 
 
3.2 
Target Population and Number of Volunteers………………………………... 
10 
 
3.3 
Study Design, Methodology, and Experimental Manipulations……………… 
10 
 
3.4 
Efficacy Data Collected………………………………………………………. 
11 
 
3.5 
Statistical Procedures…………………………………………………………. 
11 
4 
Study Objectives……………………………………………………………………... 
12 
 
4.1 
Primary Objectives……………………………………………………………. 12 
 
4.2 
Secondary Objectives…………………………………………………………. 12 
5 
Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………………. 12 
 
5.1 
Primary Hypotheses…………………………………………………………... 
12 
 
5.2 
Secondary Hypotheses………………………………………………………... 
12 
6 
Background and Military Relevance……………………………………………….. 
12 
 
6.1 
General Background………………………………………………………….. 
12 
 
6.2 
Military Relevance……………………………………………………………. 
14 
7 
Study Design………………………………………………………………………….. 15 
 
7.1 
Overview and Duration of Volunteer Participation…………………………... 
15 
 
7.2 
Determination of Sample Size………………………………………………... 
15 
 
7.3 
Population to be Studied……………………………………………………… 
15 
8 
Methods………………………………………………………………………………. 
15 
 
8.1 
Pre-Study Procedures: Advertisements and Recruitment of Volunteers……... 
15 
 
8.2 
Study Location………………………………………………………………... 
16 
 
8.3 
Study Briefing and Informed Consent………………………………………... 
16 
 
8.4 
Volunteer Eligibility………………………………………………………….. 
16 
 
 
8.4.1 
Determination of Eligibility…………………………………………. 
16 
 
 
8.4.2 
Inclusion Criteria……………………………………………………. 
16 
 
8.5 
Randomization and Volunteer Assignment…………………………………... 
17 
 
8.6 
Volunteer Identification………………………………………………………. 
17 
 
8.7 
Study Materials and Manipulations…………………………………………... 
17 
 
 
8.7.1 
HBMT……………………………………………………………….. 
17 
 
 
8.7.2 
Demographic Questions……………………………………………... 
18 
 
8.8 
Study Procedures……………………………………………………………… 18 
 
8.9 
Documents and Electronic Data Management………………………………... 18 
 
 
8.9.1 
Pre-Consenting Documents/Recruitment Materials…………………. 
18 
 
 
8.9.2 
Consenting/Screening Documents…………………………………… 18 
 
 
 
8.9.2.1 
ICD……………………………………………………….. 
18 
 
 
8.9.3 
Study Documents and Materials……………………………………... 18 
 
 
 
8.9.3.1 
UAP Reporting Form…………………………………… 
18 
 
 
 
8.9.3.2 
Angry Cognition Scale…………………………………… 
19 
 
 
 
8.9.3.3 
Demographics Questions…………………… 
19 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 6 of 54 
 
6 
 
 
 
 
8.9.3.4 
HBMT Stimuli and Instructions………………………… 
19 
 
 
 
8.9.3.5 
State Aggression Questionnaire………………………… 
19 
 
 
 
8.9.3.6 
Trait anger Questionnaire………………………… 
19 
 
 
 
8.9.3.7 
State emotion Questionnaire……………………………… 19 
 
8.10 
Unanticipated Problems………………………………………………………. 
19 
 
 
8.10.1 Definition of Unanticipated Problem (UAP)………………………… 19 
 
 
8.10.2 Definition of Unanticipated Problem Involving Risks to Volunteers 
or Others (UPIRTSO)………………………………………………... 19 
 
 
8.10.3 Reporting of UAPs and UPIRTSOs…………………………………. 
19 
 
8.11 
Data Disposition………………………………………………………………. 20 
 
8.12 
Volunteer Termination and Withdrawal……………………………………… 
20 
 
 
8.12.1 Reasons for Termination…………………………………………….. 
20 
 
 
 
8.12.1.1 Self-Withdrawal Criteria…………………………………. 
20 
 
 
 
8.12.1.2 Other Termination Criteria……………………………….. 
20 
 
 
8.12.2 Termination and Withdrawal Procedures……………………………. 
21 
 
8.13 
Quality Control and Assurance……………………………………………….. 
21 
9 
Statistical Methods and Data Analysis……………………………………………... 
21 
 
9.1 
Analyses for Main Study Hypotheses………………………………………… 
21 
 
9.2 
Level of Significance to be Used……………………………………………... 
21 
 
9.3 
Interim Analysis………………………………………………………………. 
22 
 
9.4 
Accounting for Missing, Unused, and Spurious Data………………………… 22 
 
9.5 
Procedure for Reporting Deviations from the Original Statistical Plan………. 22 
 
9.6 
Selection of Volunteers to be Included in Analyses………………………….. 
22 
10 Ethical Considerations………………………………………………………………. 
22 
 
10.1 
Volunteer Identification and Confidentiality…………………………………. 
22 
 
10.2 
Risks to Volunteer for Participating…………………………………………... 22 
 
10.3 
Benefits to Volunteers for Participating………………………………………. 22 
 
10.4 
Precautions to Minimize Risk………………………………………………… 
23 
 
10.5 
Risks to the Study Personnel………………………………………………... 
23 
 
10.6 
Financial Incentives to Volunteers……………………………………………. 23 
 
10.7 
Distribution of Payments to Volunteers………………………………………. 23 
11 Administrative Procedures………………………………………………………….. 
23 
 
11.1 
Access to Source Data/Documents…………………………………………… 
23 
 
11.2 
Information Assurance and Operational Security…………………………….. 
24 
 
 
11.2.1 
Information Assurance……………………………………………… 
24 
 
 
11.2.2 
Operational Security………………………………………………… 
25 
 
11.3 
Protocol Amendments………………………………………………………… 25 
 
11.4 
Deviations from Protocol……………………………………………………... 
25 
 
 
11.4.1 
Major Deviations……………………………………………………. 
25 
 
 
11.4.2 
Minor Deviations……………………………………………………. 
25 
 
11.5 
Closeout Report………………………………………………………………. 
26 
 
11.6 
Regulatory Audits…………………………………………………………….. 
26 
 
11.7 
Publication Policy…………………………………………………………….. 
26 
 
11.8 
Compliance with Laws and Regulations……………………………………… 26 
 
11.9 
Responsibilities of Study Personnel…………………………………………... 26 
 
 
11.9.1 
Principal Investigator (PI)………………………………………….. 
26 
 
 
11.9.2 
Associate Investigators (AI)………………………………………... 27 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 7 of 54 
 
7 
 
 
 
11.9.3 
Research Technicians and Research Assistants……………………. 
27 
12 References…………………………………………………………………………….. 28 
13 Appendices…………………………………………………………………………… 
32 
 
A 
Recruitment Materials………………………………………………………… 32 
 
B 
Angry Cognition Scale……………………………………………………….. 
33 
 
C 
ICD……………………………………………………………………………. 38 
 
D 
Demographic Questions………………………………………………………. 
43 
 
E 
HBMT Stimuli and Instructions……………………………………………… 
44 
 
F 
State Aggression Questionnaire……………………………………………… 
48 
 
G 
Trait Anger Questionnaire……………………………………………………. 
51 
 
H 
State Emotion Questionnaire………………………………………………… 
52 
 
I 
Unanticipated Problem Log………………………………………………… 
54 
 
 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 8 of 54 
 
8 
 
Abbreviations Used in the Protocol and Study: 
 
 AI: Associate Investigator 
 ANOVA: Analysis of variance 
 ANCOVA: Analysis of covariance 
 AR: Army Regulation 
 ARL: Army Research Laboratory 
 AWS: Amazon Web Services 
 CAC: Common Access Card 
 CMPN: Center for Military Psychiatry and Neurosciences 
 CR: Continuing Review 
 CSV: Comma Separated Values 
 DoD: Department of Defense 
 FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation 
 FedRAMP: Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program 
 GLM: General Linear Model 
 HAB: Hostile Attribution Bias 
 HBMT: Hostile Bias Modification Training 
 HSPB: Human Subjects Protection Office 
 IA: Information Assurance 
 ICD: Informed Consent Document 
 IRB: Institutional Review Board 
 LSD: Least Significant Difference 
 MCAR: Missing Completely at Random 
 MOMRP: Military Operational Medicine Research Program 
 MPB: Military Psychiatry Branch 
 MRMC: Medical Research and Material Command 
 MS: millisecond 
 MTF: Medical treatment facilities 
 MTurk: Amazon Mechanical Turk 
 OPSEC: Operational Security 
 ORP: Office of Research Protections 
 PI: Principal Investigator 
 PII: Personally identifiable information 
 RA: Research assistant 
 SOP: Standard operating procedure 
 SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 
 SSL: Secure Sockets Layer 
 USA: United States of America 
 USAMRMC: U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command 
 WRAIR: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research  
 
 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 9 of 54 
 
9 
 
2 PRÉCIS 
 
Aggression refers to causing harm to someone who is motivated to avoid that harm 
(Anderson & Bushman, 2002). One key predictor of aggression is the extent to which the victim 
believes that the provocateur acted in an intentionally hostile manner (e.g., being shoved on 
purpose) versus not intending to be hostile (e.g., being shoved by mistake; De Castro, Veerman, 
Koops, Bosch, & Monshouwer, 2002). Hostile attributional bias (HAB) refers to the tendency to 
attribute hostile intentions to the actions of others when contextual cues are ambiguous (Milich 
& Dodge, 1984). Hostile interpretations of provoking events are automatic and require slow and 
effortful mental processing to replace (Gilbert & Malone, 1995; Carlston & Skowronski, 1994, 
1995; Winter & Uleman, 1984; Wilkowski, Robinson, & Troop-Gordon 2010). Differences 
between the cognitive accessibility of hostile vs. non-hostile concepts is an important predictor 
of HAB and aggression (e.g., Bartlett et al., 2009; Meier and Robinson, 2004; Graham and 
Hudley, 1994). Training programs that emphasize increasing the accessibility of non-hostile 
concepts in the face of ambiguous information and reinforce inhibiting rapid hostile attributions 
may reduce HAB (Hawkins and Cougle, 2013). In a previous study (WRAIR #2574), a training 
task called Hostile Bias Modification Training (HBMT), developed jointly by WRAIR and ARL 
significantly reduced HAB on a validated measure. The present study would extend these 
findings to determine if HBMT can reduce actual expressions of low-intensity, normal 
aggressive behavior (e.g., angry driving) assessed via anonymous surveys. 
The study would utilize up to 400 volunteers (200 completers) recruited via an online 
commercial recruitment platform to participate in an online study. Volunteers will be asked to 
participate at two time-points. At time-point one, volunteers would be randomly assigned to 
complete one of two versions of HBMT. One version is designed to train the brain (rehearse and 
reinforce) to seek positive interpretations of ambiguous social cues and to inhibit thoughts and 
behaviors related to hostility. The second is a placebo version that is not expected to affect 
attitudes, cognitions, or behaviors. These versions were validated in a prior study (WRAIR 
#2574). Volunteers will also complete some brief surveys to assess state emotion, trait anger, and 
HAB. Volunteers will be asked to return between 24 and 96 hours later to complete another brief 
measure of HAB, state emotion, and a brief self-report survey about their online (public behavior 
only), driving, and other behaviors over the preceding 24 hours. We hypothesize that volunteers 
who receive the genuine training will display the less hostile bias and report lower anger and 
aggression in their daily behaviors when assessed at the second time-point.  
If successful, these findings would provide evidence that HBMT is effective in affecting 
real-life behaviors and help convince potential stakeholders of the value of HBMT. Future 
research could validate effectiveness in operational units as well as with unhealthy populations 
(e.g., anger management groups). Future research could also test the effectiveness of HBMT on 
behavioral health outcomes for usage by clinicians and portable use by individuals with 
unhealthy hostile bias and problems with social aggression when isolated from traditional 
behavioral health care (e.g., far forward deployed units). 
 
 
 
 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 10 of 54 
 
10 
 
3 STUDY SUMMARY 
3.1 Objectives 
 
Primary objective of the present protocol is: 
 
a. Evaluate the effect of hostile bias modification training (HBMT) on real-life behaviors 
(reducing typical public displays of aggression) and emotions (reducing anger). 
 
Secondary objective of the present protocol is: 
 
b. Identify shifts in HAB as an underlying cognitive mechanism linking HBMT to behavior 
change. 
 
3.2 Target Population and Number of Volunteers 
 
The target population for this study is adult male and female volunteers. The study requires up to 
400 volunteers (200 completers) successfully complete the study to run statistical analyses. We 
anticipate up to 50% drop-out between study session 1 and 2 as attrition is high in MTurk 
populations (Mason and Suri, 2012). A “completer” is defined as completing the HBMT with at 
least 60% of the stems completed correctly and participating at both T1 and T2. 
 
3.3 Study Design, Methodology, and Experimental Manipulations 
 
The study consists of a two group design. Assignment to each of the two experimental conditions 
is determined randomly upon the volunteers’ arrival to the study webpage. However, the website 
will be programmed to achieve equal sample size across the two groups. The duration of 
participation for each volunteer is estimated to be about 60 minutes (total, including both time-
points). Volunteers will complete the following as part of the study: 
 
a. HBMT: Volunteers will complete a computer-based hostile bias modification training 
where they are instructed to complete word fragments (words with missing letters) to 
form non-aggressive words. The word fragments are based on similar stimuli used in 
prior research on hostile bias (Anderson, Carnagey, & Eubanks, 2003; DeWall & 
Bushman, 2009). This task was validated in a previous study (WRAIR # 2574). 
b. Angry Cognitions Scale/HAB measure: This measure asks respondents to read 
hypothetical scenarios and indicate how they would interpret and respond to them. It was 
developed by Martin and Dahlen (2007) and will be used as a measure of HAB. 
c. Trait anger Scale: Brief measure of trait anger validated by Wilk et al., (2015). 
d. 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), and public online behaviors (e.g., posting mean comments on 
social media), as well as generic public displays of aggression items (e.g., Gotten angry 
and slammed a door).  

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 11 of 54 
 
11 
 
e. State Emotion Survey: A short measure of state (current or recent) emotions over the 
preceding 24 hour period adapted from Goldberg et al., (2006) and Quartana and Burns 
(2007). 
f. Demographic questions: Volunteers will be asked to provide their age (whole number, 
not birth date), highest level of education, and gender. These will be used as statistical 
controls in analyses. 
 
Volunteer recruitment and data collection will be done online by ARL AI’s and/or staff with 
assistance from volunteerscience.com (the online experimental platform). Volunteers will be 
recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to the experimental webpage and complete 
informed consent electronically. A description of this clinical trial will be available on 
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Additionally a copy of the informed consent may be posted to a 
public website no later than 60 days after enrollment is completed. 
 
Time-point 1: Volunteers will be randomly assigned to complete either the real or fake HBMT. 
Volunteers will also complete a brief vignette reading HAB activity, a brief measure of trait 
(what is typical for them) aggression, and state (how they have felt recently) anger.  
Time-point 2: Volunteers will be asked to return no sooner than 24 hours and no later than 96 
hours from when they completed time-point 1 to complete a following up HAB assessment 
(second vignette interpretation task) and brief surveys asking about aggressive behaviors and 
state anger during the preceding 24 hour period. 
 
Mechanism for inviting volunteers back to complete time-point 2: The two-time point nature of 
this study will be explained to volunteers in both the study advertisement and in the ICD. 
Additionally, a feature on MTurk will allow the volunteerscience.com to send a daily e-mail to 
time-one volunteers inviting them back to time-point two. This can be done without MTurk 
revealing the e-mail addresses of the volunteers. The e-mail will remind volunteers to please 
return at any point between 24 hours and 96 hours from when they completed the first time-
point. 
 
Upon completion of each time-point, the webpage will thank volunteers for their participation. 
Volunteers will be paid part of the payment at the end of time-point one and the remaining 
payment after completing time-point two (see section 10.6). 
 
3.4 Efficacy Data Collected 
 
Main endpoints for the study include: self-report measures of HAB and self-report measures of 
daily aggressive behaviors.  
 
3.5 Statistical Procedures 
 
SPSS will be used for statistical analyses. Specific tests to be used are described in Section 9. 
 
 
 
 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 12 of 54 
 
12 
 
4 STUDY OBJECTIVES 
 
4.1 Primary Objectives 
 
a. To determine the efficacy of HBMT in reducing anger and aggressive behavior in daily 
life. 
b. To determine the longevity and depreciation of HBMT effects on real life anger and 
aggression over time (between 24-96 hours post HBMT). 
 
4.2 Secondary Objectives 
 
a. Test the underlying role of HAB as a mechanism linking HBMT to changes in anger and 
aggressive behavior. 
5 HYPOTHESES 
 
5.1 Primary Hypotheses 
 
a. Hypothesis 1: Relative to volunteers in the fake-training condition, those volunteers who 
receive the real HBMT at time-point one will report less state anger and aggression at 
time-point two. 
b. Hypothesis 2: Effects of HBMT on state anger and aggression in daily life will be 
mediated by between group differences in HAB. 
 
5.2 Secondary Hypothesis 
 
a. The effects of HBMT on anger and aggression will diminish over time. In other words, 
larger effects of HBMT will be observed for volunteers returning sooner (vs later) after 
time-point one. 
b. We anticipate the most robust impact of HBMT on anger and aggression on high versus 
low stress days (per self-report). 
 
6 BACKGROUND AND MILITARY RELEVANCE 
 
6.1 General Background 
 
 
Aggression refers to causing harm to someone who is motivated to avoid that harm 
(Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Reactive or counter-aggression refers to aggression that results 
from being provoked or threatened as opposed to unprovoked aggression perpetrated for 
utilitarian goals (Dodge & Coie, 1987). However, provocations do not always result in reactive 
aggression. Indeed, the psychological literature is replete with examples of variables that 
moderate reactive aggression (See Anderson & Bushman, 2002). One key moderator is the 
extent to which the victim believes that the provocateur acted in an intentionally hostile manner 
(e.g., being shoved on purpose) versus not intending to be hostile (e.g., being shoved by mistake; 
De Castro, Veerman, Koops, Bosch, & Monshouwer, 2002). Hostile attributional bias (HAB) is 
the tendency to attribute hostile intentions to the actions of others when contextual cues are 
ambiguous (Milich & Dodge, 1984). Elevated HAB is observed in both reactive aggressors and 
premeditated aggressors. Individual differences such as trait hostility (e.g., Wingrove and Bond, 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 13 of 54 
 
13 
 
2005; Wilkowski et al., 2007) and gender (e.g., Matheson et al., 2011) are also correlated with 
HAB.  
 
 
There are many reasons why people may attribute hostile intentions to the ambiguous 
actions of others. For instance, HAB is predicted by situational factors. These include exposure 
to real or imagine violence, such as violent video games or music (Anderson et al., 2003; Bartlett 
et al., 2009), social exclusion (DeWall et al., 2009), intoxication (See Osgood and Muraven, 
2018), or even exposure to alcohol related information (Subra et al., 2010). Furthermore, 
developmental factors such as rejection from peers in childhood (Coie and Dodge, 1988) and 
harsh parenting (Weiss, Dodge, Bates, and Pettit, 1992), can predispose strong HAB. 
 
 
In general, HAB is more likely to occur in individuals and situations where non-hostile 
interpretations are less salient than hostile interpretations. Indeed, differences in the cognitive 
accessibility of hostile vs. non-hostile concepts is an important predictor of HAB and aggression. 
For example, research participants who complete ambiguous word fragments to form hostile-
themed words, tend to attribute more blame and react more aggressively to provocations from 
confederates (e.g., Bartlett et al., 2009). Further, cognitive priming tasks have successfully 
moderated blame attributions of negative events (Meier and Robinson, 2004; Graham and 
Hudley, 1994). Indeed, even priming conceptually related ideas such as hot vs. cold temperature 
can moderate the likelihood of HAB (DeWall and Bushman, 2009). In a similar vein, 
manipulations that disrupt higher-order cognitive functions (e.g., cognitive load) can lead to 
heightened aggression in response to provocations (Osgood and Muraven, 2016). 
 
 
The psychological literature provides several reasons hostile attributions are often more 
salient than non-hostile attributions. First, contextual cues related to the harm incurred as a result 
of a provocation are often more salient than cues related to mitigating factors (Finkel et al., 2012; 
Giancola et al., 2009). For example, suppose an individual cuts others in line at a checkout 
counter. The offense and the resultant inconvenience to others is obvious, whereas possible 
mitigating factors (e.g., a store employee may have told the person to cut the line) are often less 
noticeable. This perception bias is more likely when attention is restricted (Osgood & Muraven, 
2017). Second, general attributional biases, such as the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 
1977) often operate by overemphasizing the role that an individual’s intentions played in their 
behavior and underestimating the influence of situational factors. This issue is compounded 
when an individual makes attributions quickly as the less accessible non-hostile concepts may 
take more time to surface and affect cognition.  
 
 
HAB is an automatic process that requires slow and effortful controlled processing to 
override (Gilbert & Malone, 1995; Carlston & Skowronski, 1994, 1995; Winter & Uleman, 
1984; Wilkowski, Robinson, & Troop-Gordon 2010). In other words, following provocation, a 
person’s immediate appraisal of the situation is typically hostile, with less hostile considerations 
taking more time to surface.  
 
 
To increase the likelihood that ambiguous provocations will be interpreted as non-hostile, 
people must inhibit making attributions or responding with aggressive behaviors until enough 
time has passed to consider non-hostile explanations for the provocation. For example, Finkel, 
DeWall, Slotter, Oaten, and Foshee (2009) found that participants responded more aggressively 
to their partner’s hypothetical infidelity if forced to respond immediately than if made to wait 10 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 14 of 54 
 
14 
 
seconds. Similarly, Osgood and Muraven (2016) reduced aggression in provoked research 
volunteers by imposing extra time to think about reasons to inhibit aggression. Training 
programs that emphasize increasing the accessibility of non-hostile concepts in the face of 
ambiguously hostile information and reinforce inhibiting rapid hostile attributions may reduce 
HAB. Indeed, Hawkins and Cougle (2013) demonstrated a computer-based HAB training that 
involved repeated exposure to either hostile or non-hostile explanations for a series of 
hypothetical provocations reduced HAB and aggressive behavior.  
 
 
Hostile Bias Modification Training (HBMT) is a new computer task training for reducing 
HAB developed by scientists at WRAIR and ARL. The training is based on the Go/No-Go task 
(Fillmore et al., 2006) and Lexical Decision Task (Lepore and Brown, 2002). The training is 
theorized to reduce bias by affecting two key factors that drive HAB: relative cognitive 
accessibility of hostile concepts and rapid attribution-making/aggressive responding in response 
to ambiguously hostile cues. The training is designed to prime trainees to interpret ambiguous 
information as non-hostile (by increasing the saliency of non-hostile concepts) and to 
behaviorally commit to that interpretation quickly. Further, the training is designed to condition 
the individual to inhibit responding to hostile interpretations before reconsidering the possibility 
the information may be non-hostile. Relatedly, the training conditions the individual to inhibit 
responding (behaviorally) to hostile cues. Thus, the training is thought to induce a non-hostile 
attribution bias while simultaneously training the inhibition behavior in response to provoking 
cues. In a recent study (WRAIR #2574), online volunteers who completed one session of real 
HBMT displayed significantly less HAB when asked to interpret the motives of characters in 
hypothetical vignettes than volunteers who completed a fake version of the training. Although 
WRAIR #2574 demonstrated HBMT can affect HAB and anticipated behaviors in hypothetical 
situations, it did not assess real behaviors. Therefore, it is still unclear if and how HBMT is able 
to affect actual behaviors and anger in real life. The present study would answer this question. 
 
6.2 Military Relevance 
 
Hypersensitivity to ambiguous threats, hostile bias, and the resultant inappropriate application of 
aggression are documented problems that reduce force readiness (Wilk et al., 2015), particularly 
following combat deployments. This research will continue to test a platform that could be 
developed into a tool for Soldiers to alleviate hypersensitivity to perceived threats following 
combat deployments. Further, if this experiment is successful, it would justify future efforts to 
test this training in a mobile platform that could be used by operational forces in far forward 
environments where traditional behavioral health care is inaccessible. Under the Military 
Operational Medicine Research Program (MOMRP) Task Area W1A (Real-time Assessment and 
Intervention Development), the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command 
(USAMRMC) is conducting research addressing the potential utility of computerized cognitive 
processing optimization tools designed to enhance resilience and mitigate psychological injury. 
The results of this protocol will produce empirical evidence concerning the efficacy of HBMT 
for reducing anger and aggression in life. Approval of MOMRP (RAD III) core funding for this 
project was the result of a vetting process that requires explicit consideration of military 
relevance.  
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 15 of 54 
 
15 
 
7 STUDY DESIGN 
 
7.1 Overview and Duration of Volunteer Participation 
 
In the present study, we propose to examine the effectiveness of HBMT on reducing anger and 
aggression in up to 400 volunteers (200 completers) divided into two experimental conditions (n 
= 100 completers in each group). The duration of participation for each volunteer is 
approximately 60 minutes total across both time-points (see Section 7.8 for procedure 
breakdown with estimated times). 
 
7.2 Determination of Sample Size 
 
200 volunteers (100 completers per condition) are needed to achieve statistical power of 80% 
and equal groups. The previous (and only other) study to test HBMT found a large effect of the 
real (vs. placebo) training on HAB (d = .78), when HAB was assessed immediately after HBMT. 
However effect sizes are expected to be smaller in the present study as actual behavior is being 
assessed and there is a greater time delay (24-96 hours) between HBMT and the behavioral 
assessment. We will divide this effect size approximately in half (d =.4) in our prediction for the 
second study. Given this effect size, a minimum of 200 completers who follow all task 
instructions will be needed to achieve 80% power. 
 
7.3 Population to be Studied 
 
The target population for this study is adult male and female volunteers from the general 
population. 
 
8 METHODS 
 
8.1 Pre-Study Procedures: Advertisements and Recruitment of Volunteers 
 
Adult volunteers meeting eligibility (see Section 8.4) will be recruited by non-coercive means 
according to applicable US Army Regulations (ARs). Volunteers will be recruited via postings 
listed on Amazon.com Mechanical Turk (MTurk). MTurk allows researchers to use 
Amazon.com to recruit participants for online experiments in exchange for a small fee and 
payment to each participant for their time. This form of recruitment offers several advantages. 
Namely, it allows for a sample that is relatively more representative of the general (internet 
using) population than local convenience samples, substantially faster data collection, and larger 
sample sizes. Several recent empirical analyses of the strengths and weaknesses of MTurk 
samples have concluded that MTurk samples are of comparable or better quality than 
undergraduate subject pools (the most common source of volunteers in psychology research; 
Paolacci & Chandler, 2014). Researchers have determined that MTurk samples are also more 
representative of the national-population than local convenience samples (Berinsky, Huber, & 
Lenz, 2012). Furthermore, research testing classic psychological effects using MTurk versus 
undergraduate students on the same experiments report equivalent results (Goodman, Cryder, & 
Cheema, 2013). These reports recommend using MTurk for computer experiments where 
minimal experimenter involvement is needed. Consequently, MTurk has become a popular 
methodology for collecting data in social-science studies, with over 700 recent articles using 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 16 of 54 
 
16 
 
MTurk for participant recruitment (Berinsky, Huber, & Lenz, 2012). Of special relevance to the 
present research, MTurk volunteers have been used in recent research by US Army research 
laboratories and US Army research scientists (e.g., Asher et al., 2017; Onal et al., 2014; Rajivan 
et al., 2016; Roy et al., 2017). HBMT was specifically tested using an MTurk sample previously 
(WRAIR #2574) with large effect sizes observed.  
 
8.2 Study Location 
 
Volunteers will complete the study via their own internet-connected personal computers. All data 
will be collected by AI’s at ARL utilizing the Volunteerscience.com platform, which is fully 
integrate-able with MTurk. Volunteerscience.com staff may provide technical assistance with 
programming the computer tasks designed by the study PI and AI’s. Prospective participants will 
click a link on MTurk, which will redirect them to the experiment web-page hosted by 
volunteerscience.com. Data is collected and stored by volunteerscience.com. 
Volunteerscience.com will transfer data files to AI’s/study staff who will transfer data to the PI. 
Volunteerscience.com will maintain copies of data until the PI confirms receipt of data from 
Volunteerscience.com. MTurk will not receive any experimental data. The study files and data 
will be on Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) and Defense 
Information Systems Agency (DISA) authorized servers managed by Amazon Web Services. See 
section 11.2 for details on information assurance (IA) and operational security (OPSEC). 
 
8.3 Study Briefing and Informed Consent 
 
Volunteers will be presented with an electronic version of the Informed Consent Document 
(ICD; Appendix C) on the study webpage at the start of each time-point of the study. The ICD 
provides potential volunteers with information pertaining to study procedures, risks, and benefits 
related to participation in the study. Volunteers will not be asked to add a signature or any 
personally identifiable information (PII) to the ICD. However, volunteers will be asked to click a 
box indicating that they have read and understood the ICD, and agree to participate. If a 
volunteer clicks that they “do not agree” to participate, they will be redirected to a screen that 
thanks them for their time and ends the study session.  
 
8.4 Volunteer Eligibility 
 
8.4.1 Determination of Eligibility 
 
MTurk requires that all users are at least 18 years old to create an MTurk account. Prerequisites 
will be set to restrict participation to MTurk users who are located in the United States and/or 
other primarily English speaking countries. 
 
8.4.2 Inclusion Criteria 
 
All volunteers must meet the following criteria to be included in the study: 
a. Adult aged 18 and older 
b. Located in the United States or other primarily English speaking country. MTurk allows 
requestors to limit the ability to view a posting to only those within certain geographical 
regions. 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 17 of 54 
 
17 
 
 
8.5 Randomization and Volunteer Assignment 
 
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.  
 
8.6 Volunteer Identification 
 
Personally identifiable information (PII) will not be collected. The only identifiers linking an 
individual to the study would be their MTurk ID. However, the MTurk ID does not contain PII 
and is a randomly generated alpha-numeric code (e.g., A2IGSXYYGW2BHT). The platform 
being used to collect data (volunteerscience.com) will not transmit these MTurk ID’s to either 
the ARL or WRAIR research staff. Volunteersceince.com staff will replace the MTurk IDs with 
new random identifiers containing no PII. Thus, there are two levels of anonymity protecting 
volunteers. 
 
8.7 Study Materials and Manipulations 
 
8.7.1 HBMT  
 
This is a training developed by the PI (see Appendix E), but based on the existing fragment 
lexical decision task (Neely et al., 1989) and Go/No-Go task (Fillmore et al., 2006). It was used 
and validated in a previous recent study (WRAIR #2574). This task is completed entirely on the 
computer. For this task, volunteers see incomplete word fragments (one at a time) that appear at 
the center of the computer screen. Most of the word fragments could be completed to form either 
aggressive or non-aggressive words (e.g., “K I _ _” could be completed as either an aggressive 
word, “KILL”, or a non-aggressive word “KISS”, “KILT”, etc.). Some of the fragments could 
only be completed to form non-aggressive words (e.g., HA _ PY), and the remaining fragments 
could only form aggressive words (e.g., A _ _ ACK). Volunteers are instructed to respond to 
these cues as quickly and accurately as possible by typing a complete word that can be formed 
from the fragment. Volunteers are randomly assigned to either a real-training or a fake-training. 
Those in the real-training condition are told to try and complete each fragment to form a 
positive/non-aggressive word and to refrain from typing altogether if the fragment could only be 
completed as a negative/aggressive word. Participants are given 12 seconds to respond to each 
cue. Volunteers randomly assigned to the fake training will be told to complete the fragments 
with the first word that comes to mind. This fake training still exposes volunteers to the training 
stimuli and a computer task, but does not train inhibition or selectively prime non-hostility, 
which are the hypothesized mechanisms of the training. We do not believe there is a meaningful 
risk this task could unintentionally prime increased hostility given that prior research found no 
evidence of this, despite prior research including experimental conditions that were designed to 
use this this training to increase hostility (WRAIR # 2574). Actual responses in this task are not 
the primary outcome being measured. Rather, the HBMT is used to prime either hostile 
attribution bias or a reduction in hostile attribution bias and the key outcome measures are 
reported HAB, anger, and aggression. 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 18 of 54 
 
18 
 
8.7.2 Demographic Questions 
 
Volunteers will be asked to provide their gender (Male, Female, Prefer not to say), level of 
education, and age (number only). 
 
8.8 Study Procedure 
 
The procedural flow of the experiment with estimated times for each step is outlined below. The 
study will not proceed until/unless the volunteer clicks that they have read the ICD and agree. 
The times provided are only estimates of the duration we anticipate the typical volunteer will 
use. 
 
Time-point One: 
a. Volunteer arrives at study webpage and reviews ICD (estimated to take approximately 1-2 
minutes) 
b. Volunteer completes trait anger questionnaire (1 minute) 
c. Volunteer Completed State Emotion Questionnaire (3 minutes) 
d. Volunteer reads instructions for real/fake HBMT (1 minute) 
e. Volunteer completes real/fake HBMT (15 minutes) 
f. Volunteer completes ACS Scale (set A) (10 minutes) 
g. Volunteer completes demographic items (< 1 minute) 
h. Volunteer is thanked for participation (< 1 minute) 
 
Time-Point Two (24-96 hours later)-volunteers will received daily reminder e-mails via 
anonymous mturk.com functionality during interim.  
i. Volunteer arrives at study webpage and reviews ICD (same ICD as from time 1; estimated to 
take approximately 1-2 minutes). 
j. Volunteer Completes ACS (set B) (10 Minutes) 
k. Volunteer Completed State Emotion Questionnaire (3 minutes) 
l. Volunteer Completes State Measure of Aggression (10 Minutes) 
m. Volunteer is thanked for participation (< 1 minute) 
 
8.9 Documents and Electronic Data Management 
 
8.9.1 Pre-Consent Documents/Recruitment Material (Appendix A) 
 
8.9.2 Consenting/Screening Documents 
 
8.9.2.1 ICD (Appendix C) — provides potential volunteers’ information pertaining to study 
procedures, risks, and benefits, and is used to document consent to participate in the study. This 
is displayed electronically on the study webpage at the start of the study. 
 
8.9.3 Study Documents and Materials 
 
8.9.3.1 UAP reporting form (Appendix I) – Documents unanticipated problems involving risks 
to volunteers or others 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 19 of 54 
 
19 
 
8.9.3.2 Angry Cognition Scale (Appendix B) 
 
8.9.3.3 Demographics Questions (Appendix D) 
 
8.9.3.4 HBMT (real/fake) Stimuli and Instructions (Appendix E) 
 
8.9.3.5 State Aggression Questionnaire (Appendix F) 
 
8.9.3.6 Trait anger Questionnaire (Appendix G) 
 
8.9.3.7 State emotion Questionnaire (Appendix H) 
 
8.10 Unanticipated Problems 
 
8.10.1 Definition of Unanticipated Problem (UAP) 
 
As per SOP no: UWI-B-004, unanticipated problems include any unforeseen or unexpected 
incident or experience (including an unanticipated adverse event) that occurs during the conduct 
of the research and that was not described in the information reviewed by the IRB (i.e. research 
protocol or informed consent document). Unanticipated problems can include subject complaints 
or protocol violations. 
 
8.10.2 Definition of Unanticipated Problem Involving Risks to Volunteers or Others 
(UPIRTSO) 
 
As per SOP no: UWI-B-004, UPIRTSO include any incident, experience or outcome that meets 
all of the following criteria: 
 
1. Unexpected (meaning that there is a reasonable possibility that the incident, experience or 
outcome may have been caused by the procedures involved in the research) given (a) the 
research procedures that are described in the protocol-related documents, such as the 
IRB-approved research protocol and informed consent document; and (b) the 
characteristics of the subject population being studied; 
2. Related or possibly related to participation in the research (in this guidance document, 
possibly related means there is a reasonable possibility that the incident, experience, or 
outcome may have been caused by the procedures involved in the research); and 
3. Suggests that the research places subjects or others at a greater risk of harm (including 
physical, psychological, economic, or social harm) than was previously known or 
recognized. 
 
8.10.3 Reporting of UAPs and UPIRTSOs 
 
1. UAPs & UPIRTSOs will be reported to HSPB, as applicable. 
 
2. All UPIRTSOs will be reported promptly to HSPB upon their identification (within 48 
hours), and a report will be provided to HSPB within 10 working days. 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 20 of 54 
 
20 
 
8.11 Data Disposition 
 
Volunteerscience.com uses servers located in the geographic US that are owned and operated by 
Amazon Web Services (AWS). Volunteerscience.com will also assist with the technical aspects 
of collecting the data and recruiting participants (e.g., posting the advertisement to MTurk; 
managing the webpage). During the course of the study, data will be stored on secure servers 
with Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) and Defense 
Information Systems Agency (DISA) authorizations at the moderate impact level or higher (all 
US-based AWS servers meet these criteria). Data from participants are always uploaded from 
participant’s computer to the volunteerscience.com server using secure, encrypted SSL 
connections. Login to access the data on the server will be retained by only the PI/AI’s and 
authorized research staff. Passwords are always sent to the server over secure, encrypted SSL 
connections. See Section 11.2 for details on Information Assurance and Operational Security. 
Upon the completion of data collection, all data will be downloaded via .csv files (or equivalent) 
and deleted from AWS servers. All electronic data and files will be encrypted and kept in a 
password-protected folder on the MPB network drives (CMPN, WRAIR) with access restricted 
to study staff members on CAC-protected computers at WRAIR. Duplicates of data will also be 
stored on secure drives at ARL. All records (paper and electronic) will be retained for at least 
three years following completion of the research (submission of the study closeout report). No 
personally identifying information will be collected as part of this research. The only identifiers 
are the public MTURK user-names, which are random alpha-numeric monikers that do not 
contain PII. Further, even these MTURK user-names will not be retained. Volunteerscience.com 
replaces the MTurk usernames with new random alpha-numeric codes prior to providing data to 
AIs. We do not believe there is a chance these data could be re-identified later. There are no 
current plans to share data with any third parties; any future sharing of data will be addressed 
under an amendment to the protocol, with appropriate agreements in place, as applicable. 
 
8.12 Volunteer Termination and Withdrawal 
 
Situations that may cause an early termination or withdrawal of a volunteer from the study are 
described below.  
 
8.12.1 Reasons for Termination 
 
8.12.1.1 Self-Withdrawal Criteria 
 
Volunteers are always free to withdraw themselves from the study at any time without prejudice 
or penalty. They are not required to disclose a reason for their decision. Volunteers who 
withdraw themselves from the study are compensated as indicated in section 10.6 “Financial 
Incentives to Volunteers.” 
 
8.12.1.2 Other Termination Criteria 
 
In rare circumstances, a volunteer’s participation may be terminated without his/her consent if 
unplanned conditions occur (e.g., website failure). In these cases, volunteers will be compensated 
as indicated in Section 10.6, “Financial Incentives to Volunteers.” 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 21 of 54 
 
21 
 
8.12.2 Termination and Withdrawal Procedures 
Individuals may withdraw by simply navigating away from the study webpage without 
completion or not returning for the second time point. These withdrawals will not be considered 
to be associated with a UPIRTSO and/or significant and adverse reaction and therefore not 
reported to HSPB. Volunteers are not required to contact a research team member before they 
withdraw. However, if the research team discovers evidence of a withdrawal associated with a 
UPIRTSO or significant and adverse reaction to the study, (e.g., if a volunteers chooses to 
contact the PI or other team member about their withdrawal and it appears to be associated with 
a UPIRTSO and/or significant and adverse reaction to the study) this will be promptly reported 
to the WRAIR IRB within 48 hours  [via e-mail to the HSPB electronic mailbox 
(usarmy.detrick.medcom-wrair.mbx.hspb@mail.mil) and the HSPB Point of Contact (POC)]. 
 
8.13 Quality Control and Assurance 
 
All applicable MPB and ARL standard operating procedures will be followed.  
 
9 STATISTICAL METHODS AND DATA ANALYSIS 
 
9.1 Analyses for Main Study Hypotheses 
 
Between group differences (comparing real vs. fake HBMT) in the change in state anger and 
state HAB across time points (change from time-point on to time-point two) will be primarily 
assessed with a mixed-designs ANOVA. Between group differences in state aggression 
measured at time-point two will be assessed with a General Linear Models (GLM) analysis 
controlling for trait anger and demographics (age and gender). 
 
We will also plot effect of group comparing real vs. fake HBMT and time between time-points 
(24-96 hours) on change scores (time 2 anger/aggression minus time 1 anger aggression) and 
analyze this using a linear regression with an interaction term. 
 
Lower order effects will be tested using corrected Fishers LSD, Tukey, Scheffe, or other 
pairwise test as appropriate. Appropriate data-transformations may be used as necessary to 
satisfy significance test requirements. Lower order effects will also be assessed with pairwise 
dependent means t-tests. Age and gender will be controlled as covariates. Mediation analyses (if 
used) will be performed using non-parametric Monte-Carlo bootstrapping procedures using 
PROCESS (see Hayes, 2017). 
 
We may use age, gender, and trait measures as control variables in analyses. 
 
9.2 Level of Significance to be used 
 
Determination of statistical significance for all analyses will be α = 0.05. In the case of 
directional significance tests (e.g., tests using t-distributions), one-tailed tests will be used for a-
priori directional hypotheses (Section 5.1) and two-tailed for non-directional hypotheses and 
post-hoc hypotheses). 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 22 of 54 
 
22 
 
9.3 Interim Analysis 
 
No interim analyses are planned. 
 
9.4 Accounting for Missing, Unused, and Spurious Data 
 
Missing data will be identified as such in the database and will not be imputed or replaced for 
analytic purposes. Little’s Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) test (Little, 1988) will be 
used to confirm that all missing data were missing “completely at random”. Participants with 
small amounts of missing data (≤ 15%) will be excluded from analyses pairwise, whereas 
volunteers with large amounts of missing data (>15%) will be excluded listwise. Outliers are 
defined as individual scores that fall beyond an acceptable range (1.5 inter-quartile ranges above 
the third quartile or below the first quartile). Outliers will be identified as such in the database, 
and will not be included in data analyses, or will be transformed as appropriate for use in the data 
analytic strategy. 
  
9.5 Procedures for Reporting Deviations from the Original Statistical Plan 
 
Any deviation(s) from the original statistical plan will be described and justified in a protocol 
amendment and/or in the final report, as appropriate. 
 
9.6 Selection of Volunteers to be Included in Analyses 
 
See section 9.4 for situations where volunteer data will be excluded listwise versus pairwise. 
 
10 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 
 
10.1 Volunteer Identification and Confidentiality 
 
All data are considered private and confidential, and observations, responses, and other personal 
data are coded so that personal identification is not possible from data entered into information 
systems. No PII is collected by research staff as part of the study. PI, AI, and/or other research 
team members will not solicit PII from volunteers. If volunteers contact the PI, AI, or other 
research team member in a way that reveals PII (e.g., revealing identity in an e-mail to the PI 
asking a question about the study), the team member will keep these communications 
confidential and stored in secure drives at WRAIR and/or ARL. 
 
10.2 Risks to Volunteer for Participating 
 
The primary risks to the volunteer includes breach of confidentiality. However, breach of 
confidentiality is minimized due to only the MTurk handle being used. There is no perceived risk 
of the information lost, stolen, or compromised. 
 
10.3 Benefits to Volunteers for Participating 
 
There are no direct benefits to the participants in this study. Participants may find some aspects 
of the study interesting, entertaining, and/or thought provoking. Participants may also enjoy the 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 23 of 54 
 
23 
 
good feeling that comes with knowing they contributed to science. For science, we expect that 
the information we learn from this research will help guide the development of tools to help 
improve people’s lives. 
 
10.4 Precautions to Minimize Risks to Volunteers 
 
Volunteers will be told during the informed consent process that they may withdraw or refuse to 
complete portions of the study for any reason without penalty. Participants will be given the 
contact information for the Principal Investigator and WRAIR HSPB to contact should they have 
any questions related to the experiment.  
 
10.5 Risks to Study Personnel 
 
There are no anticipated risks to study personnel. 
 
10.6 Financial Incentives to Volunteers 
 
Volunteers will be paid up to $5 for their participation in this study. All volunteers who complete 
time-point one of the study will receive $3 and volunteers will receive an additional $2 if they 
complete time-point two of the study. This rate is standard pay for MTurk work (See Hitlin, 
2016). Most MTurk tasks pay 10 cents or less and result in less than an equivalent hourly wage 
of $5. Volunteers will not be paid for participation in a time point if they do not complete an 
entire time point (i.e., progress through each activity/survey and reach the end screen; volunteers 
may skip any question they do not wish to answer on surveys without affecting payment). If a 
volunteer is terminated from the study as a result of website, server, or study program related 
failures (e.g., server goes down during study), they may request payment by contacting the PI 
directly. The PI will ask Volunteersceince.org to verify that the server/website failure had 
occurred and if so to pay the volunteer. The approval authority of such requests is the PI. 
Volunteerscience.com will track the performance of each volunteer using their MTurk handle 
and calculate compensation appropriately without sharing any PII (including MTurk handle) 
with ARL or WRAIR staff. 
 
10.7 Distribution of Volunteer Payments 
 
Payment is made to participants via their MTurk account.  
 
11 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES 
 
11.1 Access to Source Data / Documents  
 
The investigators and study staff (e.g., research assistants), members of the WRAIR HSPB, 
representatives of the U.S. Army, USAMRMC, DoD, and other government agencies are 
authorized access to the study data as part of their duties and part of their responsibility to protect 
human volunteers in research. 
 
 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 24 of 54 
 
24 
 
11.2 Information Assurance and Operational Security  
 
11.2.1 Information Assurance 
Data collection will utilize the platform volunteerscience.com; during data collection period, the 
data will be stored on Amazon Web Services servers. Data/responses from participants are 
always uploaded to the experimental web page using secure, encrypted Secure Socket Layer 
(SSL) technology, which protects data using both server authentication and data encryption, 
ensuring that data are safe, secure, and available only to ARL AI’s using valid login credentials 
for the account. ARL staff will download data and provide to WRAIR staff. The PI will maintain 
the data on secure MPB network drives.  
All AWS servers located within the USA are authorized by the Federal Risk and 
Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) and the Defense Information Systems 
Agency (DISA) for storage of federal government (including DoD) data at the moderate impact 
level (some sites are also authorized for high impact level data). Moderate impact level 
authorization allows storage of data where the loss of confidentiality, integrity, and availability 
would result in serious adverse effects on an agency’s operations, assets, or individuals. 
Physical access to buildings containing AWS servers is strictly controlled both at the perimeter 
and at building ingress points by professional security staff utilizing video surveillance, intrusion 
detection systems, and other electronic means. Authorized staff must pass two-factor 
authentication a minimum of two times to access data center floors. All visitors and contractors 
are required to present identification and are signed in and continually escorted by authorized 
staff. 
Amazon facilities are equipped with fire detection and suppression equipment, multiple backup 
power systems, and climate and temperature control. Servers are decommissioned and disposed 
using processes that prevent unauthorized access to data.  
The servers reside behind high-availability firewalls and are monitored using Amazon's 
proprietary systems for detection and prevention of various threats including denial of service, 
man in the middle, IP spoofing, port scanning, and packet sniffing. Automated network security 
audits are conducted to the standards and requirements of the SANS/FBI security test, the U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security's published recommendations and the Payment Card Industry 
Data Security Standard. 
The PI will monitor volunteerscience.com for any notifications regarding security breaches 
and/or potential security breaches. In the event of a security breach, this will be considered a 
major deviation (see Section 11.4.1). 
Upon the completion of data collection, all data will be downloaded via .csv files (or equivalent) 
and deleted from AWS servers. At the completion of the study, ARL staff will download data 
from Volunteerscience.com without any PII (or MTurk handles-Volunteerscience.com replaces 
these with new random alphanumeric) and provide the data to WRAIR staff. The PI will 
maintain the data on secure MPB network drives. This study meets ARL’s IMD standards and 
requirements.  
 
 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 25 of 54 
 
25 
 
11.2.2 Operational Security 
 
All study materials, presentations, and publications, will receive approval from the WRAIR 
public affairs officer and operational security office prior to release. 
11.3 Protocol Amendments 
 
All amendments to the protocol and supporting documents must be reviewed and approved prior 
to implementation. Any amendments increasing the risks to the volunteers will require prior 
submission to HSPB for review and approval prior to implementation. The informed consent 
document will be revised to concur with any significant amendment that directly affects 
volunteers, and will also be reviewed and approved with the amendment. New volunteers 
enrolled in the study will be consented with the most recent approved consent documents.  
 
11.4 Deviations from Protocol 
 
A log of all deviations from the protocol will be maintained by the study staff, and reported to 
WRAIR HSPB, as applicable. Actions taken in response to the deviation, and the impact of the 
deviation will be assessed by the PI (or AI assigned this duty) and recorded as significant or 
insignificant. As it is common for MTurk volunteers to quit an MTurk task prior to completion, 
self-withdrawals will not, on their own, be considered a deviation (unless associated with another 
deviation).  
 
11.4.1 Major Deviations 
All major deviations to the protocol that may have an effect on the safety or rights of the 
volunteer or the integrity of the study will be promptly (within 48 hours of identification and a 
written report provided to HSPB within 10 working days) reported to the WRAIR HSPB and 
recorded in the study deviation log. The PI is responsible for making the initial determination; 
however, guidance may be obtained from the HSPB office. Major deviations may include, but 
are not limited to: 
a. Consent not obtained, or consent missing; 
b. Protocol procedures initiated prior to consent; 
c. Inclusion or exclusion criteria deviation without IRB approval; 
d. Delayed reporting of unexpected adverse events or unanticipated problems;  
 
11.4.2 Minor Deviations 
 
All minor deviations (i.e., deviations not considered to be major deviations) will be recorded in the 
study deviation log and reported WRAIR HSPB, as applicable. Minor deviations may include but are 
not limited to: 
a. Study procedure conducted out of sequence; 
b. Technical issues with website 
 
Note: Any of the above listed minor deviations may be assessed as major deviations depending on 
the severity and frequency. 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 26 of 54 
 
26 
 
11.5 Closeout Report 
 
The PI is responsible for submitting a closeout report and associated documents to the HSPB 
upon the completion of the study.  
 
11.6 Regulatory Audits 
 
The knowledge of any pending compliance inspection/visit by a government agency concerning 
clinical investigation or research, the issuance of inspection reports, warning letters or actions 
taken by any regulatory agencies including legal or medical actions and any instances of serious 
or continuing noncompliance with the regulations or requirements will be reported immediately 
to the WRAIR HSPB. 
 
11.7 Publication Policy 
 
All data collected during this study may be presented in scientific forums orally and in written 
publications in scientific journals. No identifying information for any of the volunteers in the study 
will be included in any presentation of data. All proposed publications or presentations will first be 
agreed to by any of the involved authors and then forwarded to the relevant authorities for review 
and clearance prior to submission, as per WRAIR policy. 
 
11.8 Compliance with Laws and Regulations 
 
As noted above, the PI has reviewed this protocol and will conduct the study in full compliance 
with current applicable WRAIR, ARL, Army, and DoD policies and regulations. 
 
11.9  Responsibilities of Study Personnel 
 
11.9.1  Principal Investigator (PI)  
 
The PI is responsible for oversight of all aspects of study-related activities, personnel, and final 
approval (or disqualification) of potential volunteers. PI trains or appropriately delegates training 
of all personnel on study-related skills, and oversees study conduct, data collection, data 
reduction, and data analyses. At the PI’s request, associate investigators may assist with PI 
duties. Additional duties of the PI include: 
A. To promptly report any change of investigators. Normally, changes may not be initiated 
without WRAIR HSPB approvals, as applicable, except where necessary to eliminate 
apparent immediate hazards to the human volunteer or others. 
B. To promptly (within 48 hours) report by telephone or email any UAPs which occur to 
human subjects or others to the WRAIR HSPB at (301) 319-9940. 
C. To prepare closeout report at the completion of the study. 
D. To immediately report to the WRAIR HSPB and the MRMC Office of Research 
Protections (ORP) knowledge of a pending compliance inspection by any outside 
governmental agency concerning clinical investigation or research. 
E. The PI will ensure required training and maintain a record of personnel training 
certificates. 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 27 of 54 
 
27 
 
11.9.2 Associate Investigators (AI) 
 
Under the direction of the PI, AIs may be responsible for: 
A. Oversight of study-related aspects, personnel, and final approval (or disqualification) of 
potential volunteers. 
B. Training study personnel on study-related skills. 
C. Overseeing study conduct, data collection, data reduction, and data analyses. 
D. Other duties as assigned based on credentials. 
 
11.9.3 Research Technicians and Research Assistants 
 
All research assistants will be trained by the PI in study procedures prior to working on the 
study. Under the supervision of the PI, research technicians and assistants will perform study-
related functions as assigned. The PI will supervise and delegate tasks to the staff of research 
technicians. These functions/duties may include (but are not limited to): 
 
a. Pre-study functions such as preparing study materials. 
b. Study functions: Managing MTurk posting resolving technical issues (if any) with 
experimental webpage. The study staff may also use assistance from 
volunteerscience.com and/or MTurk staff in resolving technical issues or to assist with 
platform related requests. Volunteerscience.com (and staff) may assist with the technical 
aspects of collecting, storing, and transferring data to PI/AI, with the technical aspects of 
recruiting volunteers (e.g., managing MTurk advertisement posting), and with technical 
aspects of paying volunteers (sending funds to Amazon to cover payments per existing 
ARL contracts). 
c. Post-study functions: Data quality assurance, data cleaning and preparation, data analysis. 
 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 28 of 54 
 
28 
 
12 REFERENCES 
 
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual review of psychology, 53, 
27-51. 
 
Anderson, C. A., Carnagey, N. L., & Eubanks, J. (2003). Exposure to violent media: the effects 
of songs with violent lyrics on aggressive thoughts and feelings. Journal of personality 
and social psychology, 84(5), 960-971. 
 
Asher, D., Caylor, J., Mittrick, M., Richardson, J., Heilman, E., Bowman, E., ... & Szymanski, B. 
(2017). The Investigation of Social Media Data Thresholds for Opinion Formation. arXiv 
preprint arXiv:1712.04100. 
 
Bartlett, C., Branch, O., Rodeheffer, C., & Harris, R. (2009). How long do the short‐term violent 
video game effects last?. Aggressive behavior, 35(3), 225-236. 
 
Bushman, B. J. (2002). Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis, rumination, 
distraction, anger, and aggressive responding. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 
28(6), 724-731. 
 
Carlston, D. E., & Skowronski, J. J. (1994). Savings in the relearning of trait information as 
evidence for spontaneous inference generation. Journal of Personality and Social 
Psychology, 66(5), 840-856. 
 
Carlston, D. E., Skowronski, J. J., & Sparks, C. (1995). Savings in relearning: II. On the 
formation of behavior-based trait associations and inferences. Journal of personality and 
social psychology, 69(3), 420-436. 
 
Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1988). Multiple sources of data on social behavior and social status 
in the school: A cross-age comparison. Child development, 815-829. 
 
De Castro, B. O., Veerman, J. W., Koops, W., Bosch, J. D., & Monshouwer, H. J. (2002). 
Hostile attribution of intent and aggressive behavior: A meta‐analysis. Child 
development, 73(3), 916-934. 
 
DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Gitter, S. A., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). It's the thought that 
counts: The role of hostile cognition in shaping aggressive responses to social exclusion. 
Journal of personality and social psychology, 96(1), 45-59. 
 
DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Stillman, T. F., & Gailliot, M. T. (2007). Violence restrained: 
Effects of self-regulation and its depletion on aggression. Journal of Experimental social 
psychology, 43(1), 62-76. 
 
DeWall, C. N., & Bushman, B. J. (2009). Hot under the collar in a lukewarm environment: 
Words associated with hot temperature increase aggressive thoughts and hostile 
perceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 1045-1047. 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 29 of 54 
 
29 
 
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(6), 1146-1158. 
 
Fillmore, M. T., Rush, C. R., and Hays, L. (2006). Acute effects of cocaine in two models of 
inhibitory control: implications of non-linear dose effects. Addiction, 101, 1323-1332. 
 
Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C. N., Slotter, E. B., McNulty, J. K., Pond Jr, R. S., & Atkins, D. C. 
(2012). Using I³ theory to clarify when dispositional aggressiveness predicts intimate 
partner violence perpetration. Journal of personality and social psychology, 102(3), 533-
549. 
 
Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C. N., Slotter, E. B., Oaten, M., & Foshee, V. A. (2009). Self-regulatory 
failure and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of personality and social 
psychology, 97(3), 483-490. 
 
Giancola, P. R., Josephs, R. A., Dewall, C. N., & Gunn, R. L. (2009). Applying the attention-
allocation model to the explanation of alcohol-related aggression: Implications for 
prevention. Substance use & misuse, 44(9-10), 1263-1279. 
 
Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological bulletin, 117(1), 
21-38. 
 
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A 
regression-based approach. Guilford Publications. 
 
Hitlin, P. (2016). Research in the crowdsourcing age, a case study. Pew Research Center. 
http://www. pewinternet.org/2016/07/11/research-in-the-crowdsourcing-age-a-casestudy. 
 
Lepore, L., Brown, R. (2002). The Role of Awareness: Divergent Automatic Stereotype 
Activation and Implicit Judgment Correction. Social Cognition, 20, 321-351. 
 
Little, R. J. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing 
values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198-1202. 
 
Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. 
Behavior research methods, 44(1), 1-23 
 
Milich, R., & Dodge, K. A. (1984). Social information processing in child psychiatric 
populations. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 12(3), 471-489. 
 
Neely, J. H., Keefe, D. E., & Ross, K. L. (1989). Semantic priming in the lexical decision task: 
Roles of prospective prime-generated expectancies and retrospective semantic matching. 
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(6), 1003-
1019. 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 30 of 54 
 
30 
 
Onal, E., Schaffer, J., O'Donovan, J., Marusich, L., Michael, S. Y., Gonzalez, C., & Hollerer, T. 
(2014, March). Decision-making in abstract trust games: A user interface perspective. In 
Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA), 2014 IEEE 
International Inter-Disciplinary Conference on (pp. 21-27). IEEE. 
 
Osgood, J. M., & Muraven, M. (2016). Does counting to ten increase or decrease aggression? 
The role of state self‐control (ego‐depletion) and consequences. Journal of Applied Social 
Psychology, 46(2), 105-113. 
 
Osgood, J. M., & Muraven, M. (2017). Self-Control and alcohol consumption. In Routledge 
International Handbook of Self-Control in Health and Well-Being (pp. 251-263). 
Routledge. 
 
Pedersen, W. C., Vasquez, E. A., Bartholow, B. D., Grosvenor, M., & Truong, A. (2014). Are 
you insulting me? Exposure to alcohol primes increases aggression following ambiguous 
provocation. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 40(8), 1037-1049. 
 
Quartana, P. J., & Burns, J. W. (2007). Painful consequences of anger suppression. Emotion, 
7(2), 400-414. 
Rajivan, P., Konstantinidis, E., Ben-Asher, N., & Gonzalez, C. (2016, September). 
Categorization of events in security scenarios: The role of context and heuristics. In 
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 60, 
No. 1, pp. 274-278). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. 
 
Roy, H., Kase, S. E., & Bowman, E. K. (2017, April). Crowdsourcing Social Media for Military 
Operations. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Social Sensing (pp. 23-
27). ACM. 
 
Tremblay, P. F., & Belchevski, M. (2004). Did the instigator intend to provoke? A key 
moderator in the relation between trait anger and aggressive behavior. Aggressive 
behavior, 30(5), 409-424. 
 
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001). If you can't join them, 
beat them: effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of personality and 
social psychology, 81(6), 1058-1069. 
 
Weiss, B., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1992). Some consequences of early harsh 
discipline: Child aggression and a maladaptive social information processing style. Child 
development, 63(6), 1321-1335. 
 
Wilk, J. E., Quartana, P. J., Clarke‐Walper, K., Kok, B. C., & Riviere, L. A. (2015). Aggression 
in US soldiers post‐deployment: Associations with combat exposure and PTSD and the 
moderating role of trait anger. Aggressive behavior, 41(6), 556-565. 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 31 of 54 
 
31 
 
Wilkowski, B. M., Robinson, M. D., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2010). How does cognitive control 
reduce anger and aggression? The role of conflict monitoring and forgiveness processes. 
Journal of personality and social psychology, 98(5), 830-840. 
 
Winter, L., & Uleman, J. S. (1984). When are social judgments made? Evidence for the 
spontaneousness of trait inferences. Journal of personality and social psychology, 47(2), 
237-252. 
 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 32 of 54 
 
32 
 
13 APPENDICES 
Appendix A: Recruitment Materials 
MTurk Advertisement  
(Note: the field titles and sections are standardized on MTurk). 
 
Title: Psychology Study: Help Scientists Test the Relationship Between a Vocabulary Task and 
How People Behave in Daily Life. 
Description: This is a two part research study. At time-point one, you will fill out some brief 
personality surveys. You will also read several short scenarios and imagine how you would react 
and/or interpret these situations in real life. You will also complete a vocabulary task where you 
will sort word fragments based on type as quickly as you can. This will take approximately 30 
minutes. You will be asked to return in 24-96 hours for part two where you will repeat a similar 
scenario reading activity as during time one and fill out a brief questionnaire about your recent 
behaviors. This second time-point will take about 25 minutes. 
Keywords: Psychology, Study, Experiment, Science, Sorting, Reading 
Payment: $5 ($3 at time-point one and $2 at time-point two)  
Number of assignments per HIT: 400 
Time Allotted Per Assignment: 1 hour 
HIT Expires in: [TBD] 
Auto-approve and pay workers in: 8 hours 
 
 
 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 33 of 54 
 
33 
 
Appendix B: Angry Cognitions Scale 
(ACS) 
 
Directions: Below are several scenarios followed by types of thoughts people often have 
in similar situations. For each scenario, imagine that what is being described has just 
happened to you. Then, read each thought and fill in the circle indicating how likely you 
would be to have that thought or one similar to it in that situation. There are no right or 
wrong answers and you are not being asked whether these thoughts are appropriate - 
only how likely you would be to have similar thoughts. Please respond to all of the 
thoughts for each scenario.   
 
SET A 
 
You are driving through a residential area when someone backs their car out of a 
driveway and nearly hits you.  
 
 
Very 
Unlikely  
 
Unlikely 
Somewhat  
Likely 
Likely 
Very  
Likely  
1.  
He/she did that just so I’d 
have to stop. / He/she was 
trying to scare me.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
2.  
I can’t stand it when things 
like this happen. / He/she 
almost totaled my car.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
3.  
Nobody knows how to drive 
anymore. / People are so 
careless.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
4.  
He/she must not have seen 
me.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
5.  
People should look where 
they’re going. / I was here 
first. He/she shouldn’t have 
gotten in my way.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
6.  
That dumb jerk/ass/bitch!  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Your new roommate doesn’t clean up the kitchen after having some friends over.  
 
 
 
Very 
Unlikely 
Unlikely  
Somewhat  
Likely 
Likely 
Very  
Likely  
7.  
He/she knew how upset this 
makes me and just didn’t 
care.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
8.  
I can’t stand dealing with 
his/her mess.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
9.  
He/she should keep this place 
clean because I want it clean. 
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 34 of 54 
 
34 
 
/ He/she should respect my 
home.  
10.  Even though I may want to, I 
can’t control the things that 
other people do.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
11.  That stupid lazy 
deadbeat/lowlife/slob!  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
12.  He/she does this all the 
time/is always making a 
mess/never cleans up.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Someone bumps into you at the mall and doesn’t apologize.  
 
 
Very 
Unlikely 
 
Unlikely 
Somewhat  
 
Likely 
Likely 
Very  
Likely  
13.  People are always so careless.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
14.  I just can’t stand people 
sometimes.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
15.  I’m sure he/she wouldn’t 
have bumped into me if 
he/she had seen me.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
16.  He/she’s just too lazy to go 
around.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
17.  That bitch/jerk/idiot!  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
18.  People need to learn to watch 
where they are going.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
 
You get home from the drive-thru and realize that you were given the wrong food.  
 
 
Very 
Unlikely 
 
Unlikely 
Somewhat  
Likely 
Likely 
Very  
Likely  
19.  This isn’t rocket science. How can 
people be so stupid?  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
20.  People should just do their jobs the 
right way.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
21.  I bet they knew they were screwing 
up my order and just didn’t care.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
22.  This is terrible! / I hate this!  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
23.  They always screw up my order. / 
That place is totally worthless.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
24.  Oh well, getting angry won’t bring 
me what I ordered.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
 
SET B : 
 
You are stuck behind a slow driver on an otherwise open road.  
 
 
Very 
Unlikely 
 
Unlikely 
Somewhat  
Likely 
Likely 
Very  
Likely  

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 35 of 54 
 
35 
 
25.  Now I’ll never get where I’m 
going!  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
26.  People need to learn to drive!  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
27.  People are always slowing me 
down/getting in my way.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
28.  He/she’s doing this just to make 
me mad.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
29.  What a dumb-ass/lowlife/idiot!  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
30.  Getting angry isn’t going to get me 
there any sooner.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
You are at a store waiting to be helped, but the clerks are talking to each other and 
ignoring you.  
 
 
Very 
Unlikely 
 
Unlikely 
Somewhat  
Likely 
Likely 
Very  
Likely  
31.  These lazy jerks/bitches/idiots!  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
32.  Getting angry isn’t going to get me 
out of here any sooner.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
33.  They’re probably ignoring me on 
purpose just so they don’t have to 
do their job.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
34.  This is terrible. I’m never going to 
get out of here.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
35.  People are so rude. / People like 
this always slow me down. / 
Nobody cares about the customer 
anymore.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
36.  I don’t care what they are talking 
about. They need to get over here 
and help me now.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
 
Your spouse/significant other doesn’t do something he/she promised he/she would take 
care of.  
 
 
Very 
Unlikely 
 
Unlikely 
Somewhat  
Likely 
Likely 
Very  
Likely  
37.  He/she can be so 
stupid/worthless/irresponsible 
sometimes.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
38.  I can never count on him/her. / 
He/she always forgets to do things.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
39.  He/she should know better than 
this.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
40.  This is a catastrophe! / I can’t 
believe this is happening. / I can’t 
trust him/her at all.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
41.  He/she knew this was important to 
me and didn’t do it anyway. / 
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V4-10-SEP-19 
 
Page 36 of 54 
 
36 
 
He/she isn’t taking me seriously. / 
He/she is trying to get back at me 
for something.  
42.  I’m sure there must have been a 
good reason why he/she didn’t get 
this done.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Someone talks down/is condescending to you.  
 
 
Very 
Unlikely 
 
Unlikely 
Somewhat  
Likely 
Likely 
Very  
Likely  
43.  I can’t stand having to hear this.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
44.  People are so rude. / He/she always 
acts this way.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
45.  He/she just thinks he/she’s better 
than me. / I know he/she is just 
trying to make me upset.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
46.  I hate this arrogant/conceited/stuck-
up loser!  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
47.  I shouldn’t have to listen to this. / 
People can’t talk to me this way.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
48.  Even though I don’t like hearing 
this, I can’t control what others say 
to me.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Your family doesn’t take your education/career seriously.  
 
 
Very 
Unlikely 
 
Unlikely 
Somewhat  
Likely 
Likely 
Very  
Likely  
49.  They just don’t care about what’s 
important to me.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
50.  I can’t deal with it when they act 
this way.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
51.  I don’t deserve to be treated this 
way. / They should just be quiet and 
leave me alone.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
52.  They can be so cruel/nasty/selfish 
sometimes.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
53.  People never understand me. / I 
always have to put up with things 
like this from people.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
54.  I can’t expect them to agree with 
everything I do or say.  
O  
O  
O  
O  
O  
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
 
Page 37 of 54 
 
 
WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
Scoring: 
Missattributin
g Causation 
Catastrophi
c 
Evaluating 
Overgeneralizing 
Demandingne
ss 
Inflammator
y Labeling 
Adaptiv
e 
1  
2  
3  
5  
6  
4  
7  
8  
12  
9  
11  
10  
16  
14  
13  
18  
17  
15  
21  
22  
23  
20  
19  
24  
28  
25  
27  
26  
29  
30  
33  
34  
35  
36  
31  
32  
41  
40  
38  
39  
37  
42  
45  
43  
44  
47  
46  
48  
49  
50  
53  
51  
52  
54  
 
Scoring instructions: Convert scaled responses to numbers as follows: 
Very unlikely: 1 
Unlikely: 2 
Somewhat likely: 3 
Likely: 4 
Very likely: 5 
 
Sum responses for each of the six subscales for overall score on each subscale. Item number 
legend for subscales provided in the table above. 
 
Citation:  
Martin, R. C., & Dahlen, E. R. (2007). The Angry Cognitions Scale: A new inventory for 
assessing cognitions in anger. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 25, 
155-173. 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
 
Page 38 of 54 
 
 
WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
 Appendix C 
 
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research 
Consent for Research Participation 
 
Title: Vocabulary Task and Behavior Study II 
 
Sponsor: Center for Military Psychiatry and Neuroscience- Research 
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research 
503 Robert Grant Ave. 
Silver Spring, MD 20910 
  
 
Funder: US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command 
 
Principal Investigator (PI): Jeffrey M. Osgood, Ph.D. Walter Reed Army Institute of Research  
 
Contact Info: 301-319-7475; Jeffrey.m.osgood.mil@mail.mil 
 
 
You are being asked to take part in a research study. This study is supported by the United 
States Department of Defense. The box below tells you important things you should think 
about before deciding to join the study. We will provide more detailed information below the 
box. Please ask questions about any of the information before you decide whether to 
participate. You may also wish to talk to others (for example, your family, friends, or your 
doctor) about this study, before agreeing to join. A description of this clinical trial will be 
available on http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.  Additionally a copy of the informed consent may 
be posted to a public website no later than 60 days after enrollment is completed. 
 
Please contact one of the below if you have any questions concerning the study or if you have 
any other questions or concerns.  
Captain Jeffrey M. Osgood, Ph.D.  
 
 
 
(301) 319-7475 
Dr. Phillip J. Quartana, Ph.D. 
 
 
 
 
(301) 319-9777 
 
Key Information for You to Consider 
 Voluntary Consent. You are being asked to volunteer for a research study. It is 
up to you whether you choose to participate or not. There are no penalties and 
you will not lose anything if you decide not to join or if after you join, you decide 
to quit. 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
 
Page 39 of 54 
 
 
WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
 Purpose. We are doing this research to see if how people respond on a word 
completion task relates to how they behave and respond to situations in the real 
world. 
 Duration. Your part of the study will last about one hour total over two time-
points (24-96 hours apart). You will be asked to re-review this document and re-
consent to the study when you return for the second time point. 
 Procedures and Activities. This is a two part research study. At time-point one, 
you will fill out some brief personality surveys. You will also read several short 
scenarios and imagine how you would react and/or interpret these situations in 
real life. You will also complete a vocabulary task where you will sort word 
fragments based on type as quickly as you can. This will take approximately 35 
minutes. You will be asked to return in 24-96 hours for part two where you will 
repeat a similar scenario reading activity as during time one and fill out a brief 
questionnaire about your recent behaviors. This second time-point will take about 
25 minutes.  
 Risks. Most studies have some possible harms that could happen to you if you 
join. Although efforts are made to protect your research study records, there is 
always a risk that someone outside the research team could get access to the raw 
data you provide. However, will not ask you for any personally identifiable 
information beyond your public MTurk ID and will securely transfer and store all 
data in order to protect your confidentiality. 
 Benefits. There are no direct benefits to participating in this study, but we do 
expect that you may find some aspects of the study interesting, entertaining, 
and/or thought provoking. You may also enjoy the good feeling that comes with 
knowing you contributed to science. For science, we expect that the information 
we learn from this research will help guide the development of tools to help 
improve people’s lives. 
 Alternatives. Participation is voluntary and the only alternative is to not 
participate. 
 
 
Why are we doing this research? 
You are being asked to take part in this research study because you are in the population of 
interest (English speaking adults). The purpose of this research study is to learn about how 
completing a vocabulary task where you are asked to create words from word stems with missing 
letters affects the way people interpret social situations and behave in real life based on the 
different types of instructions given during the task. 
 
This study is looking at a word completion task. This word completion task has not been well-
studied. This means that this word completion task is considered experimental for influencing or 
predicting real life behaviors. 
 
There will be no more than 400 people taking part in the study at volunteerscience.com, over a 
period of five years. 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
 
Page 40 of 54 
 
 
WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
 
What happens to the information collected for this research? 
Information collected from you for this research will be used to evaluate the impact of the 
vocabulary task you completed. The data will also be analyzed and used for research 
publications and/or presentations. 
 
We may share your research data with other investigators without asking for your permission; it 
will not contain information that could directly identify you.  
 
The overall results and findings from this study may be shared with you. You may contact the PI 
listed above who will provide you with a copy of the research report created from this project 
when it is available at your request. 
 
Once the study is complete, your records will be kept in secure storage for at least three years, at 
the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.  Records will be maintained until it has been 
deemed no longer necessary to retain them by the study Sponsor, the Walter Reed Army Institute 
of Research, and then destroyed as per applicable regulations. Any future research using your 
data will require a research protocol and approval by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) (a 
committee responsible for protecting research participants) or other authorized official 
responsible for protecting human subjects in research studies. The data protections for privacy 
and confidentiality described in this document will apply to any future use of your stored data. 
 
How will my privacy and data confidentiality be protected? 
We will take measures to protect your privacy. Even with these measures, we can never fully 
guarantee your privacy will be protected. We will try our best to protect your privacy by doing 
the following:  
 To help ensure this, we will not solicit any personally identifiable information apart from 
your public MTurk ID during the study. 
 Data collected online at volunteerscience.com will be securely stored and encrypted when 
transferred to the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) and the Army Research 
Laboratory (ARL). 
 Data will be deleted from Volunteerscience.com servers after transfer to WRAIR/ARL.  
 Data will be stored on secure drives at WRAIR/ARL. 
 You may contact the Principle Investigator with questions or concerns about the study, or to 
receive public copies of the research report when available without being required to reveal 
your name or other personally identifiable information. However, please note that all 
communications may be recorded or retained. As such if you disclose any personally 
identifiable information (e.g., sign your name in an e-mail), this may be retained. However, 
all such files will be kept confidential and stored on secure drives at WRAIR/ARL.   
 
Your study files will be kept in a safe, secure storage area at the Army Research Laboratory and 
the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research for the duration of the study.  

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
 
Page 41 of 54 
 
 
WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
 
Will I be paid to take part in this research study? 
Yes, for your participation, you will receive up to $5 for your participation ($3 for part one and 
$2 for part two). 
 
Are there costs for participating in the research? 
No, there are no costs to you for taking part in this research study. 
 
Are there disclosures of financial interests or other personal arrangements from the 
research team?  
No. 
 
What happens if I withdraw from this research?  
You may withdraw from this study at any time. If you choose to leave the study, data collected 
prior to your withdrawal will be used by the study. 
 
You may withdraw your consent at any time and stop participating in this research study. 
Leaving the study will not impact your ability to receive any other benefits that you would have 
received otherwise. Note, you must complete all of the tasks for each time point to receive the 
payment for that respective time-point. Other than medical care that may be provided and any 
other payment specifically stated in the consent form, there is no other compensation available 
for your participation in the research. 
 
You may withdraw by simply navigating away from the study webpage and/or not returning to 
the second time point. 
 
The principal investigator, Captain Jeffrey M. Osgood, Ph.D., may decide not to allow you to 
continue participating in this study if you fail to comply with the procedures as outlined in this 
form. 
 
The sponsor of this research study may end the research study and/or your participation in this 
research study for safety reasons or funding reasons. 
 
We will tell you if we discover any significant or new information during the study that may 
affect your health and willingness to continue participation. This would be done via a mass-e-
mail to all MTurk users who participated in any part of this study. 
 
Who can I contact if I have questions about my rights as a research participant? 
If you have questions about your rights as a research volunteer in this study, you may contact the 
Human Subjects Protection Branch, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research 503 Robert Grant 
Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910, phone number 301-319-9940 and email 
usarmy.detrick.medcom-wrair.mbx.hspb@mail.mil.  
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
 
Page 42 of 54 
 
 
WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
Taking part in this research study is your decision. Your participation in this study is voluntary. 
You do not have to take part in this study, but if you do, you can stop at any time. You have the 
right to completely withdraw from continued participation at any point in this study without 
penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled.  
If there is any portion of this document that you do not understand, contact the principal 
investigator before signing the form. 
 
 
Where can I find prior research related to this study? 
  
This study is testing a new computer task that has not been published in prior research. However, 
the following recently published paper discusses related research: 
 
Tuente, S. K., Bogaerts, S., & Veling, W. (2019). Hostile attribution bias and aggression in 
adults-a systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 
Clicking “agree and continue” means that you consent to participate in this research, at this time.  
 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
 
Page 43 of 54 
 
 
WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
Appendix D 
 
Demographics Questions 
 
Instructions: Please respond to each of the following questions. 
1. What is your age: _____ 
2. What is your gender: 
a. Male 
b. Female 
c. Prefer not to say 
3. Please select your highest level of education: 
a. None 
b. Less than High School 
c. High School Graduate, diploma or equivalent 
d. Some college credit, no degree 
e. Trade/technical/vocational training 
f. Associates Degree 
g. Master’s Degree 
h. Professional Degree 
i. Doctorate Degree 
j. Other  
 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
 
Page 44 of 54 
 
 
WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
Appendix E 
HBMT Stimuli and Instructions 
Real Training: 
You will be presented with words with some letters missing (e.g., AP_ LE). These can be 
completed to form either negative, or non-negative (i.e. positive or neutral) themed words. Some 
fragments could be completed to form more than one type of word.  
Your job is to complete the word fragments to make positive and/or neutral themed words. When 
a word fragment appears on your screen (e.g., KI _ _), try to think of either a positive (e.g., 
KISS) or neutral (e.g., KITE) word that can be made by completing the fragment. As soon as you 
think of one, type the complete word into the text box and press enter. If the fragment can ONLY 
be completed to form a negative word (e.g., "KI_L" can only form "KILL"), then do not press 
anything and let the clock expire. You will have 12 seconds to respond. Please try to respond as 
quickly and as accurately as possible. The first five trials are for practice only and will not be 
recorded for data. 
 
Fake-Training 
You will be presented with words with some letters missing (e.g., AP_ LE). Your job is to 
complete the fragment to form a complete word. When a word fragment appears on your screen 
(e.g., KI _ _), try to think of a word that completes the fragment (e.g., KILT). As soon as you 
think of one, please type the complete word into the text box and press enter. You will have 12 
seconds to respond. Please try to respond as quickly and as accurately as possible. The first five 
trials are for practice only and will not be recorded for data. 
Stimuli: 
Stem Type 
 
Stem  
(Possible) Solutions 
1. (P) Positive/Neutral SYM_ _ _HY  
SYMPATHY 
2. Positive/Neutral 
COM_ _ SS_ON 
COMPASSION/COMMISSION 
3. (P) Positive/Neutral WI_ _POWE_  
WILLPOWER 
4. Positive/Neutral 
ME_CY 
 
MERCY 
5. Positive/Neutral 
DISCI_LINE_  
DISCIPLINED 
6. Positive/Neutral 
MORA_ 
 
MORAL/MORAY/MORAS 
7. Positive/Neutral 
FR_ _ND 
 
FRIEND 
8. Positive/Neutral 
PEA_ _ _UL  
PEACEFUL 
9. Positive/Neutral 
PR_D_NT 
 
PRUDENT 
10. Positive/Neutral 
NIC_  
 
NICE 
11. Positive/Neutral 
P_SI_IVE 
 
POSITIVE 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
 
Page 45 of 54 
 
 
WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
12. Positive/Neutral 
T_L_RATE 
 
TOLERATE 
13. Positive/Neutral 
C_NSID_ _ ATE 
CONSIDERATE 
14. Positive/Neutral 
G_N_LE 
 
GENTLE 
15. Positive/Neutral 
CA_M  
 
CALM 
16. Positive/Neutral 
FA_R  
 
FAIR 
17. Positive/Neutral 
G_ _D  
 
GOOD/GLAD/GRAD/GRID/GILD/GOLD 
18. Positive/Neutral 
_ENEROU_  
GENEROUS 
19. Positive/Neutral 
_ _ LAX_D 
 
RELAXED 
20. Positive/Neutral 
AC_EPT_ _G  
ACCEPTING 
21. (P) Negative  
E_IL  
 
EVIL 
22. (P) Negative  
TOR_U_E 
 
TORTURE 
23. Negative 
 
REV_N_E 
 
REVENGE 
24. Negative 
 
AN_OY 
 
ANNOY 
25. Negative 
 
VIC_O_ S 
 
VICIOUS 
26. Negative 
 
E_EM_ 
 
ENEMY 
27. Negative 
 
VILL_ _ _ 
 
VILLAIN 
28. Negative 
 
B_ _TAL 
 
BRUTAL 
29. Negative 
 
HE_ _ISH 
 
HELLISH 
30. Negative 
 
DESTRC_ _IVE 
DESTRCUTIVE 
31. Negative 
 
AB_ _DON 
 
ABANDON 
32. Negative 
 
RID_ _ULE 
 
RIDICULE 
33. Negative 
 
EX_ _UTE 
 
EXECUTE 
34. Negative 
 
C_ _RCE 
 
COERCE 
35. Negative 
 
W_ _PON 
 
WEAPON 
36. Negative 
 
_ _OOT 
 
SHOOT 
37. Negative 
 
B_ _RAY 
 
BETRAY 
38. Negative 
 
CA_ _OUS 
 
CALLOUS 
39. Negative 
 
INH_ _ANE  
INHUMANE 
40. Negative 
 
LIA_  
 
LIAR 
41. (P) Ambiguous 
_UNCH 
 
PUNCH/LUNCH/MUNCH/BUNCH 
42. (P)Ambiguous  
_ _ _ENSIVE  
OFFENSIVE/EXTENSIVE/ 
EXPENSIVE/DEFENSIVE 
43. (P)Ambiguous  
PERSE_ _ _E  
PERSECUTE/PERSEVERE 
44. Ambiguous 
 
R_ _ _LESS  
RESTLESS/RUTHLESS 
45. Ambiguous 
 
REJ_ _ _ 
 
REJOIN/REJECT 
46. Ambiguous 
 
SM_ _ _ 
 
SMILE/SMACK/SMART/ 
SMOKE/SMITH/SMOTE/SMITE 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
 
Page 46 of 54 
 
 
WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
47. Ambiguous 
 
_ _ SULT 
 
INSULT/RESULT 
48. Ambiguous 
 
HEART_ _ _ _ 
HEARTLESS/HEARTFULL 
49. Ambiguous 
 
_ _CLUDED  
EXCLUDED/INCLUDED 
50. Ambiguous 
 
HEL_  
 
HELL/HELP/HELD/HELM 
51. Ambiguous 
 
_ATE  
 
HATE/MATE/RATE/FATE/TATE/BATE 
52. Ambiguous 
 
HU_ _  
 
HURT/HUGS/HUNG/HULE/HUED/ 
HUNK/HUNT/HUMP/HUGE/HURL 
53. Ambiguous 
 
ME_ _  
 
MEAN/MEAL/MEAT/MEME/MEAD/ 
MELT/MENT/MEOW/MEND 
54. Ambiguous 
 
CR_ _L 
 
CRUEL/CRAWL 
55. Ambiguous 
 
PROV_ _E 
 
PROVOKE/PROVIDE 
56. Ambiguous 
 
A_USE 
 
ABUSE/AMUSE/ACUSE 
57. Ambiguous 
 
KI_ _  
 
KISS/KILL/KICK/KILT 
58. Ambiguous 
 
B_ _ TER 
 
BITTER/BETTER/BUTTER 
59. Ambiguous 
 
H_ _ _FUL 
 
HURTFUL/HELPFUL/HOPEFUL/ 
HANDFUL/HARMFUL/HATEFUL 
60. Ambiguous 
 
_ _ _MENT 
 
TORMENT/AUGMENT/PAYMENT/ 
RAIMENT/SARMENT/SEGMENT/ 
ODDMENT/GARMENT/AUGMENT/ 
CLEMENT/FIGMENT/FERMENT/ 
ELEMENT/AILMENT 
61. Ambiguous 
 
_ _ _EFUL 
 
SPITEFUL/HOPEFUL/DOLEFUL/ 
FATEFUL/WAKEFUL/BANEFUL/ 
HATEFUL 
62. Ambiguous 
 
W_ _KED 
 
WICKED/WALKED/WINKED/WORKED 
63. Ambiguous 
 
HOSTI_ _ 
 
HOSTILE/HOSTING 
64. Ambiguous 
 
_ _ _GIVE 
 
FORGIVE/MISGIVE 
65. Ambiguous 
 
STR_ _E 
 
STRIVE/STRIKE/STRAFE/STRIFE/ 
STRIDE/STROBE/STROKE/STROVE/ 
STRIPE/STRIVE 
66. Ambiguous 
 
ATTA_ _ 
 
ATTACH/ATTACK 
67. Ambiguous 
 
EXPLO_E 
 
EXPLODE/EXPLORE 
68. Ambiguous 
 
ANGE_ 
 
ANGER/ANGEL 
69. Ambiguous 
 
INS_ _T 
 
INSULT/INSECT/INSERT 
70. Ambiguous 
 
SM_CK 
 
SMACK/SMOCK 
71. Ambiguous 
 
R_DE  
 
RUDE/RIDE 
72. Ambiguous 
 
_IGHT  
 
FIGHT/SIGHT/RIGHT/ 
BIGHT/EIGHT/TIGHT 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
 
Page 47 of 54 
 
 
WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
73. Ambiguous 
 
EN_AGE 
 
ENRAGE/ENGAGE 
74. Ambiguous 
 
MU_ _ER 
 
MURDER/MUTTER/MUSTER/MUCKER/ 
MUDDER/MUMMER/MUNTER 
75. Ambiguous 
 
OFF_ _ _ 
 
OFFEND/OFFICE/OFFERS/ 
OFFISH/OFFSET 
76. Ambiguous 
 
_OCK  
 
MOCK/SOCK/COCK/DOCK/ 
JOCK/LOCK/NOCK 
77. Ambiguous 
 
P_ _ _FUL 
 
PAINFUL/PLAYFUL/PITIFUL/ 
PALMFUL/PAILFUL 
78. Ambiguous 
 
BU_ _Y 
 
BULLY/BUDDY 
79. Ambiguous 
 
MIS_EAD 
 
MISLEAD/MISREAD 
80. Ambiguous 
 
FOR_ _ _E 
 
FORGIVE/FORSAKE 
81.  
Note: (P) indicates practice trial. 
 
 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
 
Page 48 of 54 
 
 
WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
Appendix F 
State Aggression Questionnaire 
 
Please indicate how often you have done each behavior during the past 24 hours. 
 
During the PAST 24 HOURS, how often have you: 
 
Get angry with someone and yell or shout at them. 
1 = Never 
2 = One Time 
3 = Two Times 
4 = Three or 
Four Times 
5 = Five or more 
times 
 
Get angry with someone and kick or smash something, slam the door, punch the wall, etc. 
1 = Never 
2 = One Time 
3 = Two Times 
4 = Three or 
Four Times 
5 = Five or more 
times 
 
The following set of questions is asking about your ONLINE BEHAVIOR OVER THE PAST 
24 HOURS. 
 
I have removed or refused another person on a contact list for a chat, social network, or instant 
messaging program, without him/her doing anything and only for being who he/she was 
1 = Never 
2 = One Time 
3 = Two Times 
4 = Three or Four 
Times 
5 = Five or more 
times 
 
I have posted rude or unfriendly comments about someone on social networks. 
1 = Never 
2 = One Time 
3 = Two Times 
4 = Three or Four 
Times 
5 = Five or more 
times 
 
I have insulted someone using text messages or instant messaging programs (e.g., WhatsApp, 
SMS). 
1 = Never 
2 = One Time 
3 = Two Times 
4 = Three or Four 
Times 
5 = Five or more 
times 
 
I have made a false complaint about someone on a forum, social network, or online game. 
1 = Never 
2 = One Time 
3 = Two Times 
4 = Three or Four 
Times 
5 = Five or more 
times 
 
I have plotted with other people to ignore someone on social networks. 
1 = Never 
2 = One Time 
3 = Two Times 
4 = Three or Four 
Times 
5 = Five or more 
times 
 
I have posted or shared rumors or negative comments or negative news about someone on a 
social network 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
 
Page 49 of 54 
 
 
WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
1 = Never 
2 = One Time 
3 = Two Times 
4 = Three or Four 
Times 
5 = Five or more 
times 
*I have “liked”, shared, or otherwise demonstrated support for negative content about another 
person online or on social media. 
1 = Never 
2 = One Time 
3 = Two Times 
4 = Three or Four 
Times 
5 = Five or more 
times 
 
 
The following questions are asking about your DRIVING BEHAVIORS OVER THE PAST 24 
HOURS 
 
Have you driven in the past 24 hours: Yes/No 
 
I have called other drivers names aloud (e.g., “Jerk!”, “Idiot!”) 
1 = Never 
2 = One Time 
3 = Two Times 
4 = Three or Four 
Times 
5 = Five or more 
times 
 
I have made negative comments about other drivers 
1 = Never 
2 = One Time 
3 = Two Times 
4 = Three or Four 
Times 
5 = Five or more 
times 
 
I have yelled questions like “Where did you learn how to drive!?” 
1 = Never 
2 = One Time 
3 = Two Times 
4 = Three or Four 
Times 
5 = Five or more 
times 
 
I have glared at other drivers. 
1 = Never 
2 = One Time 
3 = Two Times 
4 = Three or Four 
Times 
5 = Five or more 
times 
 
I have called other drivers mean names under my breath. 
1 = Never 
2 = One Time 
3 = Two Times 
4 = Three or Four 
Times 
5 = Five or more 
times 
 
I have sworn at other drivers aloud. 
1 = Never 
2 = One Time 
3 = Two Times 
4 = Three or Four 
Times 
5 = Five or more 
times 
 
I have sworn at other drivers under my breath. 
1 = Never 
2 = One Time 
3 = Two Times 
4 = Three or Four 
Times 
5 = Five or more 
times 
 
I have shaken my head or made other negative gestures at other drivers. 
1 = Never 
2 = One Time 
3 = Two Times 
4 = Three or Four 
Times 
5 = Five or more 
times 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
 
Page 50 of 54 
 
 
WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
I have yelled at other drivers.  
 
1 = Never 
2 = One Time 
3 = Two Times 
4 = Three or Four 
Times 
5 = Five or more 
times 
 
I have made negative comments about other drivers under my breath. 
1 = Never 
2 = One Time 
3 = Two Times 
4 = Three or Four 
Times 
5 = Five or more 
times 
 
I have given other drivers a dirty look. 
1 = Never 
2 = One Time 
3 = Two Times 
4 = Three or Four 
Times 
5 = Five or more 
times 
 
I have thought negative things about other drivers like “Where did you get your license?” 
1 = Never 
2 = One Time 
3 = Two Times 
4 = Three or Four 
Times 
5 = Five or more 
times 
 
Items adapted from: 
 
Álvarez-García, D., Barreiro-Collazo, A., Núñez, J. C., & Dobarro, A. (2016). Validity and 
Reliability of the Cyber-aggression Questionnaire for Adolescents (CYBA). The European 
Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 8(2), 69-77. 
 
Deffenbacher, J. L., Lynch, R. S., Deffenbacher, D. M., & Oetting, E. R. (2001). Further evidence 
of reliability and validity for the Driving Anger Expression Inventory. Psychological 
Reports, 89, 535-540.  
 
Deffenbacher, J. L., Lynch, R. S., Oetting, E. R., & Swaim, R. C. (2002). The Driving Anger 
Expression Inventory: A measure of how people express their anger on the road. Behaviour 
Research and Therapy, 40, 717-737. 
 
*Indicates an item created by the PI and added to the study. 
 
 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
 
Page 51 of 54 
 
 
WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
Appendix G 
Trait anger Questionnaire 
I am a hotheaded person. 
1 = Strongly 
Disagree 
2 
3 
4 
5 = Strongly 
Agree 
 
I have a fiery temper. 
 
1 = Strongly 
Disagree 
2 
3 
4 
5 = Strongly 
Agree 
 
Citation: Wilk, J. E., Quartana, P. J., Clarke‐Walper, K., Kok, B. C., & Riviere, L. A. (2015). 
Aggression in US soldiers post‐deployment: Associations with combat exposure and PTSD and 
the moderating role of trait anger. Aggressive behavior, 41(6), 556-565. 
 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
 
Page 52 of 54 
 
 
WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
Appendix H 
State Emotion Questionnaire 
How well do the following statements describe how you have FELT OVER THE PAST 24 
HOURS? 
I have felt angry. 
1 = Extremely 
uncharacteristic 
of me. 
2 
3 
4 
5 = Extremely 
characteristic of 
me. 
I have felt joyful. 
1 = Extremely 
uncharacteristic 
of me. 
2 
3 
4 
5 = Extremely 
characteristic of 
me. 
I have felt stressed. 
1 = Extremely 
uncharacteristic 
of me. 
2 
3 
4 
5 = Extremely 
characteristic of 
me. 
I have been energetic. 
1 = Extremely 
uncharacteristic 
of me. 
2 
3 
4 
5 = Extremely 
characteristic of 
me. 
I have been relaxed. 
1 = Extremely 
uncharacteristic 
of me. 
2 
3 
4 
5 = Extremely 
characteristic of 
me. 
I have gotten frightened easily. 
1 = Extremely 
uncharacteristic 
of me. 
2 
3 
4 
5 = Extremely 
characteristic of 
me. 
I have gotten irritated easily. 
1 = Extremely 
uncharacteristic 
of me. 
2 
3 
4 
5 = Extremely 
characteristic of 
me. 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
 
Page 53 of 54 
 
 
WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
I have not been easily annoyed. 
1 = Extremely 
uncharacteristic 
of me. 
2 
3 
4 
5 = Extremely 
characteristic of 
me. 
Citation: Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory 
measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De 
Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe, Vol. 7 (pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The 
Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. 
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & 
Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain 
personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96. 
Quartana, P. J., & Burns, J. W. (2007). Painful consequences of anger suppression. Emotion, 
7(2), 400-414. 
 
 

WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
 
Page 54 of 54 
 
 
WRAIR 2628-HBMT Online Study II-V3-10-JUL-19 
 
Appendix I 
Unanticipated Problem Log