Anger PDF Psychology

Anger Basic Emotion approach: Facial expression of emotion Basic Emotion approach: facial expression Skin of forehead is pulled tight by action of the muscles that lower the brows. ¢ The brows are drawn sharply downward and inward, creating a bulge above or slightly above the nasal root. ¢ Eyes appe...

Anger Basic Emotion approach: Facial expression of emotion Basic Emotion approach: facial expression Skin of forehead is pulled tight by action of the muscles that lower the brows. ¢ The brows are drawn sharply downward and inward, creating a bulge above or slightly above the nasal root. ¢ Eyes appear narrow. ¢ Raising mound of chin and lower lip. ¢ Basic Emotion approach: facial expression ¢ Tightly closed mouth (inverted U shape), clenched jaws, and compressed lips. l ¢ Open mouth with clenched teeth is also seen, and may be more “basic.” Note: can be widened eyes instead of narrowed eyes, but brows are always lowered, so eyes are “hooded.” Anger: facial expression ¢ Why does an angry face look the way it does? l Because an angry person looks more mature, and maturity is associated with being more dominant relative to others (Marsh, Adams, & Kleck, 2005). People who pose angry faces are judged as older (Marsh et al., 2005). People judge women as higher in status if they are seen with lowered eyebrows (Schmid Mast & Hall, 2004). Is anger a negative state? ¢ For most people, the subjective experience of anger is clearly negative. For some, the subjective experience of anger is not as negative. l The Attitude Toward Anger scale (e.g., “I like how it feels when I am furious”) assesses individual differences. l People higher on trait anger, have a more positive attitude toward feeling anger. Anger: appraisal ¢ The prototypical cause of anger in appraisal research is things not being the way they ought to be. l Being frustrated or interrupted by someone. Based on recalled instances of being angry (Shaver et al., 1987). As indicated in the Harmon-Jones reading, one can argue about whether this appraisal of cause precedes anger or follows it. Anger: classic survey research James Averill’s (1982) book entitled "Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion." ¢ Averill conducted a questionnaire study in which he asked people (both members of the community, and university students) to report on anger episodes. ¢ Anger: Classic survey research ¢ We are discussing action tendency and actual behaviour. What does the angry person do? l What impact does the angry person think he/she has? l Anger: reported action tendency and behaviour ¢ Instrumental behaviour: the goal is to change the situation, or to reduce emotional distress l Action tendency: aggression against instigator, mostly for direct psychological aggression (e.g., verbal retort), and somewhat for direct physical aggression. Less for indirect aggression (e.g., gossip). Anger: reported action tendency and behaviour ¢ Instrumental behaviour: l Action is controlled: people inhibit direct physical aggression the most, then direct psychological, and indirect aggression the least. l Action: In ½ of cases, people report engaging in direct psychological aggression. In 1/3 of cases, indirect aggression. In 1/10 of cases, direct physical aggression. Anger: reported action tendency and behaviour ¢ ¢ ¢ Talking about it (most cases): most of the time with a third party, or with instigator (~40% of cases). Engaging in behaviours to calm down (most cases) such as distraction (e.g., going for a walk, watching TV). In most cases, the angry person felt that the instigator knew he/she was angry. Anger: reported expressive reactions and physiology Common: General tension, feeling restless, frowning, flushing or rise in temperature. ¢ Less common: shaking or cracking voice, crying (about ¼ of cases), nervous laughter (very infrequent) ¢ Anger: reported reassessment ¢ In most cases, reassessment of the situation: See the other’s motives in a more positive light. l See one’s own role in the incident. l Reduce the importance of event. l Laugh at the event l See the other as less important. Anger: reported reassessment ¢ Reassessment more often occurs when: The instigator is a loved one. l The instigator is someone higher in authority. l ¢ Reassessment occurs the least when: l The instigator is a stranger. Anger: reported reassessment ¢ Reassessment seems useful: Reported anger is less intense. l Reported anger episode is shorter in duration. l ¢ Reassessment is not necessarily or always good. Anger: perceived consequences ¢ Most perceive their being angry as beneficial. Get the other person to change attitude or behaviour. l Increased mutual understanding. l Increased self-understanding on the part of the angry person (own strengths and weaknesses). l Release of tension. l Anger: perceived consequences ¢ In ¼ of cases, people reported that the anger had been maladaptive or harmful. Did not get expressed right way, but only later. l Did not have the desired impact. l Was itself an unpleasant situation. l Worsened the on-going situation. l This completes the Averill research. Anger: Self-regulation ¢ In general, people find anger aversive, and want to reduce these feelings. l ¢ This is clear from the Averill research just covered. At times, people may realize that it is good to be angry, if they think it may help them get their way. l For example, people may deliberately get angry, such as in a study on getting “psyched up” before playing a competitive video game. Expressing anger is high status ¢ High status individuals may express more anger than low-status individuals. Anger is perceived as a powerful emotion, and one that is associated with action. l People may then associate anger with higher social status. l Expressing anger is high status (Tiedens, 2001) ¢ People give more status to those who express anger, relative to those who express sadness. Study 1: President Clinton l Study 2: Two matched video clips l Study 3: Negative emotion expression and career promotion l Study 4: Negative emotions in a job interview l Expressing anger is high status (Tiedens, 2001): Comments 1. Expressers were male. ¢ 2. “Calm” anger. ¢ 3. Who the anger is directed to. ¢ 4. The anger expression is reasonable ¢ 5. Hiring sad in Study 4. ¢ 6. Anger = competence = status is culture bound. ¢ Expressing anger, social status, and gender ¢ “Can an angry woman get ahead?” See the reading by Brescoll and Uhlmann (2008). l In short, the answer seems No! This is consistent with much research on gender and leadership. If women are in positions of leadership, they are disliked it they are forceful and authoritative (it’s more OK for men). How anger influences how a person processes information and thinks Attentional scope ¢ Visual attention to rewards vs. threats ¢ Social judgments ¢ Perceived risk ¢ Anger and cognitive scope ¢ Anger is associated with approach motivation. This is the main theme in the HarmonJones and Harmon-Jones reading. l In line with what we covered earlier in the course, we can expect approach motivation to be reflected in narrowed cognitive scope. l Anger and cognitive scope ¢ Anger narrows attentional scope relative to a neutral state (Gable, Poole, & Harmon-Jones, 2015). On each trial, U.S. participants see an anger evoking picture on a computer screen (e.g., flag-burning, 9/11 events) or a neutral picture. l Participants are then presented a Navon letter (e.g., large H made up of Fs). l Anger and cognitive scope ¢ After anger, participants responded faster to local than global targets. The opposite was true for neutral affect control condition. Anger and visual attention to threats and rewards ¢ Two hypotheses for anger (Ford et al., 2010): l l Anger includes approach motivation: Anger may lead people to focus their visual attention more on rewards. Because people generally approach rewards. Anger states are negative: Anger may lead people to focus their visual attention more on threats (affective consistency). Anger and visual attention to threats and rewards ¢ Hypothesis for excited/happy: Feeling excited/happy is linked to approachoriented motivation. l ¢ Excited/happy people will focus their attention more on rewards than threats. Hypothesis for fear: Fear is negative and includes avoidance motivation, which would lead to a focus on threats, not rewards. Anger and visual attention to threats and rewards ¢ The study: Male undergraduate students are led to experience either anger, fear, excitement, or neutral mood. Affect is induced by a combination of autobiographical recall (15 min) and listening to music (the next 5 min). l This is done after eye-tracker is put on and calibrated. l Anger and visual attention to threats and rewards ¢ On each trial, participants were presented 2 images side by side for 2 seconds. Pair combinations were of images that were: Rewarding (e.g., erotic couples, rushing waterfalls). l Threatening (e.g., people with weapons, mutilated bodies) l Neutral controls (e.g., jet planes). l Anger and visual attention to threats and rewards ¢ Results for rewarding images: Angry participants focused more on the rewarding images than did control participants. l Excited/happy participants were similar to angry participants. l Fear participants did not differ from control participants. l Anger and visual attention to threats and rewards ¢ Results for threatening images: l Angry and excited/happy participants focused on the threatening images as much as control participants. Anger is like neutral mood in its effects. l Fearful participants focused more on the threatening images than control participants. Anger and visual attention to threats and rewards ¢ In sum, anger influences visual attention, and increases attention to rewarding, but not threatening information. The effects of anger are similar to those of happy excitement. l What matters here is the motivational orientation of the emotion, and not whether it is negative or positive. Social judgment consequences of anger (Keltner et al., 1993) ¢ When angry, people are encouraged to generally see others as causing events. This is because when you are angry, you are angry at someone for something. You see that person as the cause. l This attributional orientation would be apparent for both negative and positive events. Social judgment consequences of anger (Keltner et al., 1993) ¢ In contrast, sad people are more likely to see events as being caused by circumstances, because that is the mind set for people who are sad. l Study 1: mood induction (sadness vs. anger), followed by likelihood ratings of various events. Events are either positive or negative, and are either described as occurring because of another’s actions, or because of circumstances. Social judgment consequences of anger (Keltner et al., 1993) ¢ Study 1 results: Angry participants tend to see events caused by other persons as more likely than events caused by circumstances. l Sad participants tend to see events caused by circumstances more likely than events caused by people. l Social judgment consequences of anger (Keltner et al., 1993) ¢ Study 2: Mood induction, followed by reading detailed description of unpleasant event. Imagine that you are the protagonist. l Results: Participants who felt angry were more likely to see others as responsible, and as unfair. Sad subjects saw impersonal circumstances as more the cause. Anger and perceived risk (Lerner & Keltner, 2001) Prior research: Anger is associated with a tendency to see negative events as predictable, under human control, and as caused by others. ¢ Prior research: Fear is associated with a tendency to see negative events as unpredictable, and as determined by the different situations people are in. ¢ Anger and perceived risk (Lerner & Keltner, 2001) ¢ ¢ Hypotheses: Anger might lead people to perceive lower risk (because events are predictable, and under human control), and fear might lead people to perceive greater risk (for the opposite reasons). Perceptions of risk here have to do with the likelihood of uncontrollable negative events such as people dying of brain cancer or of a stroke (estimates were made for annual fatalities in the US). Anger and perceived risk (Lerner & Keltner, 2001) ¢ Findings Individuals who were dispositionally angry were less likely to see risk (i.e., were more optimistic), relative to those low on anger. l Individuals who were dispositionally fearful were more likely to see risk, relative to those low on fear l ¢ The effects were replicated in experimental studies. Anger and perceived risks of terrorism (Lerner et al., 2003) ¢ The same type of findings emerged. Participants were part of a nationally representative sample that was led to feel either angry or fearful. l Participants then rated the likelihood (from 0 to 100%) of their experiencing eight risky events, most of which concerned terrorism (e.g., “being hurt in a terrorist attack”). l Less risk to the self perceived for anger (30.5%) than for fear (35.2%). l Anger and perceived risks of terrorism (Lerner et al., 2003) ¢ ¢ Parallel findings for perceptions for the average American. As well, men saw less risk than women. This difference was largely due to gender differences in anger and fear. l ¢ Men report more anger and less fear than women. Angry participants were more likely to want to deport foreigners in the US who did not have valid visas (r=. 26 between opinion and anger) The interpersonal consequences of anger Anger in negotiations Anger and trust Anger and perceived hostility Anger and punishing wrong-doers Expressing anger in negotiations (Sinaceur & Tiedens, 2006) ¢ Expressing anger can communicate that you are a tough negotiator Effective when the other person has poor alternatives. l Study 1: scenario study on selling a product l Study 2: negotiation dyad, in which one plays the recruiter and one plays the candidate. l Expressing anger in negotiations (Sinaceur & Tiedens, 2006) ¢ Comments Expressing anger might make the other person get angry, which could then backfire. l Expressing anger might be aversive for the other, who will avoid you. l Expressing anger might be good for short, single-shot negotiations. l Anger, sadness, and trust (Dunn & Schweitzer, 2005) Anger leads people to trust others less. Why? Because anger is linked to seeing the cause of the problem as outside of oneself. ¢ In contrast, sadness is tied to a sense that the situation has caused the problem. ¢ Anger, sadness, and trust (Dunn & Schweitzer, 2005) Study 1: Trusting a coworker ¢ Study 4: Trust in a stranger ¢ Comments ¢ Being aware of why one is angry eliminates the effect of anger. l Judgments of a well known other are not affected by one’s anger. l Anger and perceiving hostile intent (Tiedens, 2001) ¢ Induced anger is associated with more hostile inferences regarding others’ behaviour for aggressive participants, and not for non-aggressive participants. l Example sentence that was memorized: “the nurse put the doctor’s stethoscope in her drawer.” For aggressive participants, the word “steal” was an effective retrieval cue later on for this sentence. Anger and punishing wrongdoers (Goldberg et al., 1998) ¢ People who are angry because a wrongdoer caused someone harm, will punish another person who causes an unrelated act of harm more, if the original wrongdoer went unpunished. l Why? Unresolved anger is linked to the belief that justice has failed and that justice needs to be restored.