Do we have any evidence to show this?
As a meat eater, I would be a little concerned if people automatically view me as likely to have violent emotions or that I'm irritating (ok, don't say it. :D) just because I eat meat.

No, Energylz - I am reliably assured I am just as irritating as a vegetarian . Perhaps the same applies to you.

However, you might find [url]this short study, published in 2000[/url] interesting - it covers attitudes towards and beliefs about vegetarianism from a health perspective.

Am currently looking for any research that actually evidences the aggressive thing ...

Fx

I know meat is seen as tamasic and this is seen to be a root cause of anger etc., but if a person leads a life that also cultivates the other guna such as rajas and sattva, then these can surely counter-balance the effects of the tamasic meat? e.g. If someone lives compassionately for the service of others, partakes in positive actions and meditates regularly, thus increasing their sattva energy, would this not prevent the eating of meat from having any dire effect on the tamasic energy?

From what I understand of the gunas, tamasic foods are acquired through 'himsa' which means violence or hostility, the opposite of ahimsa, meaning non-violence, and the animal's fear and anguish are ingested when its meat is eaten. Because of that characteristics of the food are said to manifest in the individual as aggression and other negative emotions.

The purchaser of flesh performs himsa by his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does himsa by actually tying and killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing. He who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts of the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells, or cooks flesh and eats it-all of these are to be considered meat-eaters.
- Mahabharata, 115:40

It's an interesting question. I'd be interested to explore it further when I have a bit more time.