PERSONALITY UNDER STRESS WHO GETS ANGRY AND WHY INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE APPRAISAL AND EM

297 Pages·2006·4.81 MB·English

by  Wranik

UNIVERSITE DE GENEVE FACULTE DE PSYCHOLOGIE ET
SECTION DE PSYCHOLOGIE DES SCIENCES DE L’EDUCATION

PERSONALITY UNDER STRESS: WHO GETS ANGRY AND WHY?
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE APPRAISAL AND EMOTION

THESE

Présentée à la
Faculté de psychologie et des sciences de l’éducation
de l’Université de Genève
pour obtenir le grade de
Docteur en Psychologie

par
Tanja WRANIK
(Allemagne)

THESE N° 336

GENEVE 2005
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I was very fortunate to conduct research on a topic – or should I say on topics – that I found
particularly interesting and exciting. In addition, I am grateful that I was able to conduct this
research within in a very dynamic team, the Geneva Emotion Research Group, and to have
benefited from the support of the Swiss National Science Foundation doctoral program
« Stress and emotion at work and in social relationships ». The lectures, financing, and
exchanges with researchers and participants from these two groups have helped make my
PhD process a very stimulating experience.

There are also many people I would like to thank personally. Thank you to my thesis
director, Professor Klaus Scherer, who supported my ideas, encouraged me to look into the
object of anger question, and was always helpful when my enthusiasm to understand and
measure everything got out of hand. Thank you to the members of the thesis committee,
Professors Jens Asendorpf, Phoebe Ellsworth, Fabio Lorenzi-Cioldi, and Gilbert Probst, for
their very helpful comments on the first version of the document, and their willingness to
read it again as members of the jury. Thank you to Professor Norbert Semmer for accepting
to be a member of the jury and for reading this second version of the document. I look
forward to new insightful comments. Thank you to the members of the Emotion Research
Group, past and present: Professor Susanne Kaiser for introducing me to the world of
appraisal and anger and for her kind and helpful comments from the beginning; Tom
Johnston, Carien van Reekum, and Susanne Schmidt for the discussions and ideas while I
was pondering the thesis project; Didier Grandjean for his technical and statistical advice
and for the many stimulating discussions and ideas that were never put into practice due to
time constraints and working realities; Ursula Scherer for her systematic and inspiring
approach to complicated data sets; Rachel Baeriswyl-Cottin for her valuable assistance with
the French summary; Tatjana Aue, Tanja Bänziger, Elise Dan, Etienne Roesch, David
Sander, and Veronique Tran for sharing their research interests and methods with me and
allowing me to learn about emotions from so many different perspectives. And of course
Patricia Garcia-Prieto Chevalier and Céline Jouffray (the honorary Emotion Research Group
member), who were not only helpful with research problems, but perhaps most important,
kept me sane throughout the PhD process with their understanding, support, and friendship.

2
Within the FNRS-funded doctoral program, I was fortunate to have met young researchers
from other teams in Switzerland, and would especially like to thank Simone Grebner, Nicola
Jacobshagen, and Peter Wilhelm for the many interesting discussions. Finally, I had the
opportunity to collaborate with two other research groups. Thank you to Professor Susan
Schneider and Erwan Bellard for the possibility to work in the Human Resource Department
and to keep in touch with the applied contexts of psychology research until this day. Thank
you to Professor Guido Gendolla, who warmly accepted me into his Applied Motivation,
Personality, and Learning Group and to work with Kerstin Brinkman, Michael Richter,
Ralph Schmidt, and Professor Rex Wright.

The work-life balance has been a tricky one to keep, and I wish to thank my parents, Peter
and Ursula Wranik, for having supported my early academic pursuits at Bucknell
University; an experience that shaped my thinking and interests and probably led to the
desire to pursue this PhD research. Thank you to my brother, Bernd Wranik, and my friends,
who had to put up with my endless talk of the thesis and probably wondered what I was
doing all these years. Most of all, however, I wish to thank my husband, Michel Odehnal,
who not only encouraged me to return to university for my PhD, but also put up with all the
highs and lows, the many working weekends, and the too few vacations. His computer and
technical expertise helped out of several difficult situations and our discussions always put
what I was doing into perspective and to think out of the box. For all the wonderful years we
have shared, this thesis is as much your work as it is mine, and I therefore dedicate it to you
- together with all my love.
3
Abstract

Anger is one of the most powerful human emotions and has generally been associated with
adverse social, psychological, and physical consequences. In addition, past research has
shown that some types of persons are more likely to experience, report, or express anger
than others. However, it remains unclear why some individuals report anger more frequently
than others in certain types of situations, such as workplace stress and conflict. Cognitive
appraisal theorists generally agree that anger is related to evaluations of high goal relevance,
obstruction of an important goal, and blame. We conducted three experiments in a carefully
designed emotion induction procedure of potential workplace conflict, a dyadic social
intelligence test, and examined if a particular individual difference variable, explanatory
style, would systematically influence cognitive evaluations related to causal attribution and
blame. We predicted that individuals who generally attribute causality of negative situations
externally (Externals) would be more likely to blame the partner for poor performance in the
test and to report anger than those who generally attribute causality of negative situations
internally (Internals). Although we found that Externals were more likely to blame the
partner than Internals, we also found that Internals reported more anger than Externals.
However, anger reported by Internals was primarily directed at the self, whereas anger
reported by Externals was often directed at the interaction partner. Other results suggest that
blaming may be an emotion regulation strategy. Question related to the object of anger are
examined in detail, and the theoretical and practical implications of these findings for
appraisal theories of emotion and organizational psychology are discussed.

4
Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.............................................7
1.1 Introduction and overview.......................................................................................7
1.2 Emotions................................................................................................................10
1.2.1 Appraisal theories of emotion.......................................................................10
1.2.2 Anger.............................................................................................................13
1.2.3 Causal attribution and emotion......................................................................18
1.2.4 Cognitive appraisal and causal attribution – a debate...................................20
1.3 Personality.............................................................................................................22
1.3.1 Individual differences in appraisal and anger................................................26
1.3.2 Individual differences in causal attribution and blaming..............................30
1.3.3 Explanatory style in depression and optimism research................................33
1.3.4 Individual differences in attribution and the effect on emotion....................36
1.4 Summary and discussion.......................................................................................36
1.5 General research questions....................................................................................37
1.6 Overview of the present research..........................................................................39
2 EMOTION INDUCTION METHOD and GENERAL PROCEDURE...........................43
2.1 Overview...............................................................................................................43
2.2 Method...................................................................................................................45
2.2.1 General procedure.........................................................................................46
2.2.2 Measures........................................................................................................54
2.2.3 Level of analysis............................................................................................58
2.3 Conclusion.............................................................................................................59
3 FIRST EXPERIMENT...................................................................................................60
3.1 Overview...............................................................................................................60
3.2 Method...................................................................................................................61
3.2.1 Recruitment and participants.........................................................................61
3.2.2 Procedure.......................................................................................................61
3.3 Overview of the measures and predictions............................................................63
3.3.1 Relationship-building questions....................................................................63
3.3.2 Hypotheses....................................................................................................64
3.4 Results...................................................................................................................66
3.4.1 Overview of analyses....................................................................................66
3.4.2 Preliminary analyses......................................................................................66
3.4.3 Manipulation check questions and implication.............................................67
3.4.4 Relationship-building paradigm....................................................................68
3.4.5 Testing the hypotheses..................................................................................69
3.5 Discussion.............................................................................................................85
4 SECOND EXPERIMENT..............................................................................................91
4.1 Overview...............................................................................................................91
4.2 Method...................................................................................................................92
4.2.1 Recruitment and participants.........................................................................92
4.2.2 Procedure.......................................................................................................92
4.3 Overview of the measures and predictions............................................................93
4.3.1 Hypotheses....................................................................................................94

5
4.4 Results...................................................................................................................96
4.4.1 Overview of analyses....................................................................................96
4.4.2 Preliminary analyses......................................................................................97
4.4.3 Manipulation check questions and implication.............................................97
4.4.4 Testing the hypotheses..................................................................................98
4.5 Discussion...........................................................................................................116
5 THIRD EXPERIMENT................................................................................................122
5.1 Overview.............................................................................................................122
5.2 Method.................................................................................................................122
5.2.1 Recruitment and participants.......................................................................123
5.2.2 Procedure.....................................................................................................123
5.3 Overview of the measures and predictions..........................................................124
5.4 Results.................................................................................................................124
5.4.1 Overview of analyses..................................................................................124
5.4.2 Preliminary analyses....................................................................................124
5.4.3 Manipulation check questions and implication...........................................125
5.4.4 Testing the hypotheses................................................................................126
5.5 Discussion...........................................................................................................142
6 GENERAL DISCUSSION............................................................................................146
6.1.1 Emotion induction procedure......................................................................146
6.1.2 Understanding personality, appraisal, and anger in social situations..........148
6.1.3 Implications for the workplace....................................................................162
6.1.4 Relationship between blaming and anger....................................................164
6.1.5 Conclusions.................................................................................................166
7 References....................................................................................................................168
8 French summary..........................................................................................................187
9 Appendices...................................................................................................................198

6
CHAPTER 1

1 INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

1.1 Introduction and overview

Anger is one of the most powerful human emotions and has generally been associated with
adverse social, psychological, and physical consequences (Berkowitz, 1993; Tavris, 1989).
This emotion is therefore primarily studied in clinical and health psychology, to understand
the relationships between anger and psychological and physical suffering (e.g., Martin &
Watson, 1997), or in developmental and educational psychology, to determine the causes of
youth violence and criminal behaviors (e.g., Crowell, Evans, & O’Donnell, 1987). As
illustrated by Carol Tavris’ (1989) book title Anger: The misunderstood emotion, however,
there is still much to be learned about this emotion. Recently, due perhaps to Zeitgeist or to
methodological advances, systematic examination of anger has flourished in other domains
as well. For example, researchers in neuropsychology are identifying cerebral regions
involved in anger and aggression (e.g., Harmon-Jones & Allen, 1998; Wacher, Heldmann,
& Stemmler, 2003); and researchers in organizational psychology are examining anger in
relation to interpersonal conflict (Fitness, 2000), leadership effectiveness (Lewis, 2000), and
social hierarchies and power structures (Tiedens, 2000).

The workplace is probably one of the most interpersonally frustrating contexts in people’s
lives (Allcorn, 1994; Bensimon, 1997), and it seems likely that anger and irritation are
frequently experienced emotions. Indeed, a representative study of emotions in Switzerland
(Scherer, Wranik, Sangsue, Tran, & Scherer, in press) found that individuals who reported
an event provoking anger or irritation the day before, most likely experienced this emotion
at work. Anger at work has both individual health outcomes and organizational
consequences. For example, Prkachin, Mills, Zwaal, and Husted (2001) found that social
stressors (in the form of an anger interview) produced larger, more sustained changes in
blood pressure than cognitive and physical stressors. Similarly, hostility, frustration, and
competitiveness (often regrouped under the Type A personality type), have been associated
with cardio-vascular disorders (Fontaine, Kulbertus, & Etienne, 1996). Finally, anger is
7
related to a number of negative workplace outcomes such as organizational retaliatory
behaviors and revenge (Bies & Tripp, 1998), antisocial behaviors and theft (Chen &
Spector, 1992), and interpersonal conflict and hostility (Folger & Baron, 1996).

Although there are many reasons and situations that can lead to anger in the workplace,
some may be more frequent or problematic in terms of individual and organizational
consequences. In addition, past research has demonstrated that some types of persons are
more likely to experience, report, or express anger than others (e.g., Spielberger, Krasner, &
Solomon, 1988). For example, information technology and globalization has made many
jobs increasingly complex and specialized, leading to worker interdependence (Struthers,
Miller, Boudens, & Briggs, 2002). Individuals therefore often need to work together on
relatively difficult tasks under time pressure, and to deal with ambiguity and communication
problems. These situations can provoke strong emotions that may hinder crucial
cooperation, due to task and relationship conflicts, and might also decrease individual health
and well-being. Understanding which persons are more likely to report anger in such a
situation could therefore be particularly useful. In addition, how different types of persons
deal with these situations and the role that anger may play in hindering or helping the
individual or the relationship between the partners may provide new insights concerning
anger and other emotions in the workplace.

We will use a cognitive-affective system theory of personality (Mischel & Shoda, 1995) and
the cognitive appraisal theory of emotion (e.g., Scherer, 2001) approaches to examine how
personality influences emotions when individuals work together on a stressful,
interdependent task. In particular, the cognitive-affective system theory of personality
(Mischel & Shoda, 1995, 1998) defines personality in terms of specific person-situation
interactions. According to this model, individuals differ in how they selectively focus on
specific elements of a situation, how these are cognitively and emotionally encoded, and
how these encodings activate and interact with other cognitions and affects in the
personality system. Thus, although the personality structure is stable, different units become
“activated” across situations that contain different psychological features. In this approach
individual differences can be seen as chronic accessibility or activation levels of the
particular cognitions the person has available.

8
Cognitive appraisal theories of emotion (e.g., Arnold, 1960; Frijda, 1986; Lazarus, 1968;
Roseman, 1991; Scherer, 1984; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985) postulate that the elicitation and
differentiation of emotions is based upon a process of cognitive evaluations or appraisals.
Each theorist postulates that emotional experience corresponds to a particular pattern of
values on these dimensions in which the adaptational significance of the person’s relation to
the environment is evaluated. Thus, it is not an event that will determine an emotional
response, but the evaluations and interpretations the individual makes of the event. For
example, given the almost infinite number of stimuli in the environment, an organism must
first decide which ones are relevant for its physical or psychological well-being before
choosing to act. A relevance detection check would therefore be the first in a sequence of
cognitive appraisals components (Scherer, 2001) and a necessary element in any type of
emotional experience. For the elicitation of anger, high goal relevance, obstruction of an
important goal, a threat to ego-identity, and blame are other important appraisal
components (Lazarus, 1991).

Using these approaches, we will test if a specific personality variable, when it is activated,
will be significantly related to a specific evaluation of the situation, which in turn will allow
us to predict why some individuals are more likely to report anger, while others will report
other emotions (or no emotions). In addition, because we are using process models of
personality and emotions, we will not be able to conduct our research in the workplace, but
rather, will study them in detail within a carefully designed laboratory simulation of
potential workplace conflict. We hope that this choice of models and methodology will
allow us to gather evidence for the personality – cognitive appraisal – emotion relationship,
to provide new insights into the complex emotion anger, and to answer questions with both
theoretical and practical utility.

The following review will first describe appraisal theories of emotion, focusing primarily on
concepts and evidence concerning anger. We will show that the appraisal dimensions related
to causal agency and blame are among the most important defining characteristic of anger
and discuss the relationship between these parameters and emotion. Next, we will examine
individual differences in anger, causal agency, and blame and demonstrate that a specific
individual difference variable, explanatory style or attribution style (Peterson, Semmel, von
Baeyer, Abramson, Metalsky, & Seligman, 1982; Seligman, 1986), often discussed in terms
9
of optimism and pessimism (Chang, 2001), could be particularly relevant for the
understanding of anger in interdependent work contexts. The final section of the chapter
will summarize the overlap and apparent contradiction in these areas of research and
highlight the questions raised in the literature review.

1.2 Emotions

1.2.1 Appraisal theories of emotion

In 1884, William James asked, What is an emotion? (James, 1884), and researchers are still
pondering, arguing, debating, and providing evidence to give a coherent answer. Although
these is no consensus concerning the definition or exact nature of emotion, the componential
theories of emotions, which stipulate that emotions can be identified and differentiated from
each other on the basis of specific patterns of components, have gained widespread
acceptance. Within this approach, the cognitive appraisal theories have been among the
most influential. These theories postulate that the elicitation and differentiation of emotions
is based upon a process of cognitive evaluations or appraisals, and each of the theorists (e.g.,
Arnold, 1960; Frijda, 1986; Lazarus, 1968; Roseman, 1991; Scherer, 1984; Smith &
Ellsworth, 1985) proposes that emotional experience corresponds to a particular pattern of
values on these dimensions.

Appraisal researchers have provided evidence that there exist some strong, reliable, and
clear links between specific cognitive evaluations or appraisal patterns and the experience of
particular emotions (e.g., Frijda, Kuipers, & ter Schure, 1989; Roseman, 1991; Roseman,
Spindel, & Jose, 1990; Scherer, 1997; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985; Smith, Heynes, Lazarus, &
Pope, 1993; Smith & Lazarus, 1993). For example, fear / anxiety can been associated with
evaluating one's situation as threatening; sadness with helplessness in an undesirable
situation where there is little or no hope of improvement; anger with blaming someone else
for an undesirable situation; and guilt with blaming oneself (Smith & Lazarus, 1993).
Although appraisal theorists share many of the same basic assumptions about emotions,
there are also important differences and points of disagreement (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003;
Roseman & Smith, 2001). A detailed description of these similarities and differences,
however, is beyond the scope of this review. Because this research was conducted based
upon the appraisal theory proposed by Scherer (1984, 1988, 1993, 2001), we will briefly
10