At the beginning of the target rating block, we asked participants to “Think of the ‘biggest asshole’ you know personally where you have directly experienced the person’s negative behaviors” and to report how difficult it was to identify this individual (1 = Not at All Difficult to 5 = Very Difficult). Participants then described their perception of the target in terms of gender, age, relationship to the participant, closeness to the participant (1 = Not at All Close to 5 = Very Close), and the extent to which the insult “asshole” characterized the target (“asshole”-ness; 1 = Not at All to 5 = Very Much).8 Next, participants described three of the target’s bothersome, “asshole-related” behaviors in an open-ended format. For each nominated behavior, participants additionally provided ratings of the degree to which the participants perceived that the target knows that the behavior is bothersome (“Do you think this person knows this behavior is bothersome for others?”; i.e., knowledge), cares that the behavior is bothersome (”Do you think this person cares this behavior is bothersome for others?“; i.e., caring), and would be able to change the behavior if they so desired (”If this person was sufficiently motivated (i.e., knew and cared sufficiently), do you think this person could change this behavior?“; i.e., ability to change) from 1 (Not at All) to 5 (Very Much). Finally, participants rated their perception of the target’s personality on the FFM using the IPIP-NEO-120. Items were modified to refer to the target (e.g., ”This person gets angry easily”). Reliability for IPIP-NEO-120 informant reports was mostly adequate (domains = .88 to .95; facets = .58 to .88).