The After-Effects of Regulating Anger and Anger-Related Emotions on Self-Report Ratings and Behavior: Divergent Consequences for Men and Women

Psychologia, 2005, 48, 288–305

THE AFTER-EFFECTS OF REGULATING ANGER AND ANGER-RELATED EMOTIONS ON SELF-REPORT RATINGS AND BEHAVIOR: DIVERGENT CONSEQUENCES FOR MEN AND WOMEN

Judith A. HOSIE1), Alan B. MILNE1) and Lorna McARTHUR1)

1)University of Aberdeen, U.K.

Despite the reported frequency of anger in everyday life, comparatively little is known about the psychological consequences of regulating this emotion. In the present study male and female participants were exposed to a short anger arousing film clip under one of three conditions: Expression (participants were asked to respond spontaneously to the events depicted in the film clip); suppression (participants were asked to inhibit outward expressions of emotion); and substitution (participants were asked to replace feelings of anger with a previously recalled happy memory). Analysis of participants’ emotional state following the period of emotion regulation showed that whereas suppression led to an increase in females’ self reports of anger and related affective states, substitution led to an increase in males’ ratings of anger and related affective states. Analysis of participants’ expressive behavior following the period of anger regulation also showed an increase in expressions of outrage and disgust by female suppressors. Overall, the effects of anger regulation upon expressive behavior were less marked than those for self-reports of emotion. The results are discussed in the wider context of research on gender differences in emotion, the concurrent effects of regulating emotion, and thought suppression.

Key words: anger, emotion regulation, gender

Self-report studies of the incidence of anger in everyday life have consistently shown that people experience anger, or are the target of someone else’s anger, at least several times a week (Anastasi, Cohen, & Spatz, 1948; Averill, 1982; Gates, 1926; Meltzer, 1933; Richardson, 1918). Despite its frequency, however, comparatively little is known about the psychological consequences of expressing, or inhibiting the expression of this emotion. To date, research into anger has tended to focus upon its medical and social consequences. On the one hand, medical research suggests that both the propensity to express anger, and the way that anger is managed, have implications for the incidence and severity of coronary heart disease (Everson, Goldberg, Kaplan, Julkunen, & Salonen, 1998). In particular, individuals whom habitually suppress feelings of anger (i.e., feel angry but do not show it) are at greater risk of developing coronary heart disease, hypertension, and even minor ailments such as recurrent headaches, than individuals whom adopt alternative methods of anger control (Gallacher, Yarnell, Sweetnam, Elwood,

The research reported in this paper was funded by a grant from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC: Grant Number R000 22 3261) awarded to J. A. Hosie and A. B. Milne. We would like to thank our colleague Louise Phillips for her helpful comments on a draft of this manuscript. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Judith A Hosie, School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, King’s College, Aberdeen, AB24 2UB, Scotland, UK (e-mail: [email protected]).

288 THE AFTER-EFFECTS OF REGULATING ANGER AND ANGER-RELATED EMOTIONS 289

& Stansfeld, 1999; Venable, Carlson, & Wilson, 2001). On the other hand, research on the social consequences of anger suggests that expression can also have detrimental effects, leading to marital and parental conflict, property destruction, and reduced levels of occupational effectiveness (Deffenbacher, Oetting, Lynch, & Morris, 1996). Despite accumulating knowledge of the long-term medical and social consequences of expressing or suppressing chronic anger, comparatively little is known about the short- term, psychological impact of acute anger expression and control. What are the immediate consequences of wanting to shout at one’s neighbor, and doing so; or, alternatively, refraining from doing so? The research reported here represents an attempt to address this type of question by examining participants’ emotional state and expressive behavior immediately following a period of anger regulation.

Anger Regulation: Expression, Suppression, and Substitution In the present study, the effects of expressing anger were compared with two methods of regulating anger: suppression (i.e., feeling angry but inhibiting its outward expression) and substitution (i.e., invoking thoughts of a happy memory when experiencing anger). These regulatory strategies were selected on the basis that they represent the most commonly deployed methods of responding to the experience of anger (and other aversive emotions) in everyday life. A humiliating remark, the erratic behaviour of another driver, the discovery that one’s car has been vandalised, all represent common provocations to anger, which depending upon one’s relationship with the instigator, results in either expression or concealment. Furthermore in such unforeseen circumstances, concealment is most likely to be achieved through behavioral inhibition, i.e., feeling angry but not showing it. Nevertheless, on more rare occasions, we might anticipate that an event, a situation or a person is likely to give rise to anger. In these circumstances, it is possible to pre-emptively engage in strategies that will help to reduce the intensity of felt emotion. The current study will examine the effects of one such strategy (substitution), namely that of invoking an anger-incompatible emotion (i.e., happiness) during an anger-arousing episode. This strategy is used in a both a therapeutic setting to treat anger disorders (Kassinove & Sukhodolsky, 1995) and by repressors to defend themselves from negative emotional material (Boden & Baumeister, 1997). As comparatively little is known about the consequences of these different regulatory strategies upon the experience and expression of anger, we next consider research findings in two related domains (emotion regulation and thought suppression), with a view to deriving some testable predictions.

Emotion Regulation: Concurrent Effects Research by Gross and colleagues suggests that certain methods of regulating emotion may be more effective than other methods (Gross & Levenson, 1997; Gross, 1998). In particular, ‘antecedent-focused’ strategies (i.e., cognitively based techniques that can be employed prior to, or in anticipation of, an emotion-arousing event, viz. substitution) might be more beneficial than ‘response-focused’ strategies (i.e., behavioral strategies for inhibiting the expression of emotion once is has occurred, viz. suppression). 290 HOSIE, MILNE, & McARTHUR

In a series of studies, using standardized film clips to elicit emotion, Gross (1998) and Gross and Levenson (1993, 1997) compared the effects of suppressing and expressing emotions (in particular, disgust, sadness, and amusement) upon measures of physiological responding, subjective feeling state, and expressive behavior. They observed that although suppression led to a decrease in expressive behavior, this was achieved at the expense of heightened levels of sympathetic nervous system activation, and little or no decrease in the rated intensity of felt emotion. Moreover, when re-appraisal (i.e., re- interpreting a stimulus so as to reduce its emotional import) was examined, it was found that this was a more effective method of reducing physiological activation, and ratings of emotional intensity, than either suppression or expression. Research by Gross and colleagues also suggests that suppression, but not reappraisal, may lead to an increase in cognitive load, resulting in an impairment in the ability to encode verbal information (Richards & Gross, 2000). Gross’s research has concentrated upon the concurrent effects of regulating emotion: participants’ physiology was recorded during a period of emotion regulation and their subjective feeling state was assessed retrospectively using a number of self-report scales. In contrast, the aim of our study is to examine the immediate after-effects of emotion regulation. Moreover, we study anger, a neglected emotion in this domain, despite its prevalence in everyday life. We predicted that if the after-effects of regulating anger are comparable to the concurrent effects of regulating emotions in general then anger substitution should be a more effective method of reducing the rated intensity of this emotion (and related affective states) than either expression or suppression. This prediction is based on the rationale that as a cognitively based strategy, substitution will be more effective in reducing felt emotion than suppression because it is deployed in anticipation of the emotion-arousing event (Gross, 1998). Moreover, it is predicted that the reduction in the rated intensity of felt emotion associated with anger-substitition, is also likely to lead to a reduction in expressive behavior. Research into the concurrent effects of emotion regulation, however, does not enable us to derive specific predictions about the after effects of anger suppression. The research of Gross (Gross, 1998; Gross & Levenson, 1993, 1997) shows that suppression is less effective than other strategies at reducing the subjective experience of emotion as it occurs. However, the effects of this regulatory strategy on participants’ subsequent emotional state and behavior are not known. This research will therefore examine the hitherto unexplored question of how people feel and behave immediately following a period of anger suppression.

The Effects of Self-Regulation and Thought Suppression Research into the effects of thought suppression (e.g., Wegner, 1994) also suggests a number of predictions. This research shows that when people are explicitly instructed to suppress thoughts of a particular object (e.g., ‘try not to think of a white bear’), they report doing so with greater frequency than if they had not suppressed at all: a phenomenon known as the rebound effect (Wegner, 1994). In contrast, when people are instructed THE AFTER-EFFECTS OF REGULATING ANGER AND ANGER-RELATED EMOTIONS 291 think of a single replacement thought (e.g., a red Volkswagen) whenever the to-be- suppressed thought comes to mind, the size of this rebound effect is significantly reduced (Wegner, Schneider, Carter, & White, 1987). Although two possible explanations have been proposed to account for this effect (i.e., one involving the operation of two opposing processes (Wegner, 1994), the other repetitive priming (Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, & Jetten, 1994)), this phenomenon has been observed across a wide range of domains (though see Monteith, Spicer, & Tooman, 1998). Nevertheless, its applicability to emotional material is unclear. Wegner, Erber, and Zanakos (1993) showed that participants seeking a positive mood under conditions of high cognitive load became sad, whereas those seeking a negative mood under cognitive load became happy. However, Romer and Borkovec (1994) failed to find rebound effects in a study comparing the effects of expressing versus suppressing thoughts about neutral, anxious, and depressing target situations. In studies of thought suppression participants are asked to suppress a particular thought (e.g., try not to think of a white bear: Wegner et al., 1987) as opposed to refrain from the behavioral expression of a particular emotion (e.g., trying not to look angry). It is conceivable however, that as in the case of thought suppression, behavioural inhibition is achieved by cognitive mediation. For example, a participant who is explicitly instructed to suppress outward expressions of anger might try to do so by repeatedly rehearsing the statement, ‘I mustn’t look angry’ (thereby priming the very emotion that he/she is intending to suppress). If this is the case, we would predict that participants’ attempts to suppress anger should paradoxically result in heightened levels of self-reported anger and behavioural displays of anger, i.e., an emotional rebound effect will be observed, akin to that observed in studies of thought suppression. In contrast, we anticipated that invoking an incongruent affective state (i.e., engaging in substitution) when experiencing feelings of anger, would have comparable effects to thinking of a single replacement thought when the to-be-suppressed item comes to mind, and would therefore lead to a reduction in self-reports of anger and expressive behavior.

Anger and Gender In the current study, we also examine whether the experiential and behavioral consequences of expressing, suppressing and substituting anger are the same for males and females. Recent investigations of the frequency with which males and females report experiencing anger, have produced conflicting results. In a study comparing the responses of Australian and International respondents’ self-reports of the frequency and intensity of eight different emotions, Brebner (2003) observed that amongst Australian respondents, females reported experiencing anger more frequently and more intensely than males. In contrast, in a recent analysis of a cross-cultural dataset on emotion collected from respondents in 37 countries, Fischer, Mosquera, van Vianen, and Manstead (2004) found that males showed a greater tendency than females to experience and express powerful emotions (such as anger); whereas, females showed a greater tendency than males to report experiencing and expressing powerless emotions (such as fear and sadness). Finally, in a sociological investigation of emotion and gender, Simon and Nath (2004) 292 HOSIE, MILNE, & McARTHUR observed that males and females did not differ in the frequency of reported anger, however, gender differences were found for anger intensity and duration, with females reporting that their anger was more intense and longer in duration, than males’ anger. Despite conflicting data in relation to gender differences in the frequency of experienced anger, there is evidence to suggest that males and females genuinely differ in the reasons they give for regulating anger in different social contexts (Timmers, Fischer, & Manstead, 1998), and in the ways that they express, and cope with their feelings of anger. In particular, research shows that men are more prone to express their anger behaviourally (and are more likely to resort to physical and verbal assault) than women, who are more likely to express their anger verbally (Deffenbacher et al., 1996; Frost & Averill, 1982; Kring, 2000). Furthermore, Simon and Nath (2004) observed that women were more likely than men to report coping with their anger by talking to others (including the target of their anger), and by praying to God. In contrast to these verbal coping strategies, men were more likely to report coping with their angry feelings by having a drink or taking medication. The current study explores gender differences in anger further by examining whether the experiential and behavioral consequences of engaging in different anger regulation strategies are the same for men and women. Published research shows that males and females do not appear to differ in their behavioral, physiological and subjective responses to expressing, suppressing and reappraising emotions (Gross, 1998; Gross & Levenson, 1993). However, the focus of this research was on the concurrent effects of regulating sadness and amusement. The focus of the current study is on the subjective and behavioural after-effects of regulating anger.

Overview of the Current Study In this study, video footage depicting cruelty to animals, and the killing of innocent protesters during Apartheid in South Africa, were used to elicit anger. Participants were exposed to both film stimuli. Prior to watching the first film stimulus, participants were instructed to either express their feelings freely during the film (the expression group), or to suppress outward displays of emotion (the suppression group), or to substitute feelings of anger (the substitution group) depending upon the group to which they had been assigned. In order to assess the after-effects of these different regulatory strategies upon subjective feeling state, participants’ rated their emotions on a series of Likert-type scales administered immediately following the first film stimulus. In order to examine the after- effects of the different regulatory strategies upon behavior, a second anger-arousing film clip was presented (following the first) in order to elicit further feelings of anger. Participants’ expressions of emotion were coded while watching this second anger- arousing film clip. Prior to its viewing, participants were informed to disregard previous instructions to express, suppress, or substitute their angry feelings, and to respond naturally to the events depicted. This methodology enabled us to (1) examine how our participants would feel THE AFTER-EFFECTS OF REGULATING ANGER AND ANGER-RELATED EMOTIONS 293 following a period of anger regulation, and (2) examine how they would behave following a period of anger regulation, when exposed to a second anger-provoking stimulus.

Experimental Hypotheses Research into the concurrent effects of emotion regulation (e.g., Gross, 1998; Gross & Levenson, 1997), and on the effects of thought suppression (e.g., Wegner et al., 1987), led us to predict that substitution would be a more effective control strategy than either suppression or expression. As a result of this, in the current study we anticipated that, following the first anger-arousing film clip, participants who had been instructed to substitute their feelings of anger with an anger-incompatible emotion, would rate themselves as less angry, than participants who had been instructed to either suppress, or express their feelings of anger. Moreover, we anticipated that the beneficial effects of this strategy would extend to the behavioral domain. Specifically, participants who had been instructed to substitute their feelings of anger with an anger-incompatible emotion during the first anger-arousing film clip, would show fewer behavioral displays of anger during the second-arousing film clip, than participants who had either expressed or suppressed their anger during the first film clip. Predictions regarding the effectiveness of acute suppression as an immediate method of regulating anger are less easy to formulate. Research by Gross (Gross, 1998; Gross & Levenson, 1993, 1997) has shown that despite having little, or no effect, upon the subjective experience of emotion, suppression is a successful method of reducing the outward display of an emotion as it occurs. The effects of suppressing anger on participants’ subsequent emotional state, and behavior, however, are not known. One interesting possibility explored in the current study is that suppression will result in an emotional rebound effect. That is, despite our caveat regarding the differences in the methodologies employed in studies of thought suppression with those adopted in the current study, it is possible that relative to substitution and expression, anger suppression will paradoxically result in heightened levels of self-reported anger following the first anger arousing film clip, and an increase in behavioral displays of anger during the second anger-arousing film clip. In line with research showing gender differences in overall emotional expressivity (Gross & John, 1995; Kring, Smith, & Neale, 1994), we predicted that females would show a greater elevation in self-reported anger (following the first film clip) and behavioral display of anger (during the second film clip), than males. However, of primary interest in the present study, is whether the consequences of suppressing, expressing and substituting anger, as measured by emotion state ratings, and expressive behavior, are the same or different for males and females. To our knowledge, this is the first study that has examined the interaction of gender with different emotion regulation strategies. 294 HOSIE, MILNE, & McARTHUR

METHOD

Participants: Participants were 48 undergraduate students, recruited through the Department of Psychology’s Participation Scheme. Students were awarded credits for their participation. Participants were aged between 17 and 23 years (M = 19) and of British origin. Sixteen participants (8 male and 8 female) were randomly assigned to three emotion regulation conditions: Suppression, Expression and Substitution.

Apparatus and Materials: Audio-visual. Participants’ behavioral responses were recorded during the entire experimental session using a concealed, remotely controlled video camera. Film clips. Three film clips were used. One clip, 180 seconds in length, depicted the paintings of Claude Monet (Jaubert, 1994) was used to familiarize participants with the laboratory. Baseline measures of participants’ expressive behavior were recorded during presentation of this film clip. Anger was elicited using two emotion-arousing film clips. One clip, extracted from a documentary entitled ‘The Ugliest Show on Earth’ (Phillips, 1998) depicted cruelty to animals, and was 168 seconds in length. The second clip extracted from the movie ‘Cry Freedom’ (Spencer, Briley, & Attenborough, 1987) depicted the shooting of innocent protesters and was 209 seconds in length. Although both film clips showed evidence of eliciting a ‘blend’ of negative affective states (including outrage and disgust) during a pre-test session, these films were selected on the basis that participants’ mean self-report ratings for anger were higher than for other related emotions. The film clip extracted from ‘Cry Freedom’ has also been identified independently as eliciting high levels of self-reported anger (Gross & Levenson, 1995). Rating scales. Participants’ emotional state prior to and following the first anger-arousing film clip was assessed using a series of 8-point scales (anchor points: 0 = not at all, 7 = very). Gross and Levenson (1995) note that anger often co-occurs with other negative affective states. Accordingly, we designed a set of scales which were intended to measure anger and potentially related emotional states (disgusted, happy, sad, surprised, frightened, outraged, annoyed, upset, tense, relieved, contented). In addition, participants rated the extent to which they agreed with 4 action tendencies, strongly associated with the experience of anger (Spielberger, 1988): I feel like swearing, I feel like shouting out loud, I feel like hitting someone, I feel like banging on the table (anchor points: 0 = not at all, 7 = very much so). At the end of the experimental session, manipulation check scales were administered. Specifically, participants were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed (0 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) with the following statements: (a) I felt emotions but tried to hide them; (b) I reacted completely spontaneously. In addition to assessing participants’ emotional state during the experiment, a trait measure of emotional expressivity was obtained using the Berkeley Expressivity Questionnaire (Gross & John, 1995). This is a 16-item questionnaire that consists of 3 correlated subscales: Impulse Strength, Negative Expressivity and Positive Expressivity, which can be treated separately or combined to form an overall index of expressivity. The overall expressivity score was employed as a covariate in the current study.

Procedure: Participants were seated at a table at distance of 2 metres from a 28-inch color television monitor. They were informed that the purpose of the experiment was to look at different ways of producing and measuring emotion and that they would be required to watch video footage and to rate their feelings at intervals throughout the session. They were then requested for their consent to participate. At this point, participants in the substitution condition were instructed as follows: “Picture something that makes you feel good. It could be a particular event or person. Please take a few minutes to think about that memory. Later in the session you will be asked to recall that memory”. Participants were then shown the neutral film clip. They were informed that the purpose of watching this film clip was to help them to relax and accustom them to the seating and television arrangements. Participants then completed the emotion rating scales. Following this, the first anger-inducing film clip was shown. All of the participants were informed that: “You may find some of the events depicted in this clip upsetting. Nevertheless it is important that you watch the film as carefully as possible. You may look away if you find any images distressing and if you find the film too upsetting just say ‘stop’ at any time”. However, participants in the suppression condition were instructed: “If you do have any feelings during the clip it is essential that you try not to let them show (in THE AFTER-EFFECTS OF REGULATING ANGER AND ANGER-RELATED EMOTIONS 295 order that someone watching you would not know that you were feeling anything at all)” (cf. Gross & Levenson, 1993, 1997; Gross, 1998). Participants in the expression condition were encouraged to: “React spontaneously and naturally to the events shown in the film. Watch the film as you would at home or in the cinema”. Participants in the substitution condition were instructed “You may find yourself becoming upset by the events in the film. If you do begin to experience negative emotions at any point in time, please try to think about the positive memory which you focused on earlier”. Following the film clip, participants completed the emotion rating scales for a second time. Finally, all of the participants were shown anger clip 2. However, on this occasion they were instructed to: “Relax and react spontaneously and naturally to the events shown in the film. Watch the film as you would at home or in the cinema”. Thus, participants in the suppression and substitution conditions were asked to disregard their previous instructions. Within each group, half of the participants watched the ‘Ugliest Show on Earth’ followed by ‘Cry Freedom’; for the other half, this order was reversed. At the end of the experimental period, participants completed the manipulation check scales, the BEQ, and were fully debriefed. During debriefing, participants were informed that they had been covertly filmed. Consent was sought and given by all of the participants for the footage to be used for research purposes.

Coding: To examine the effects of anger-regulation on behavior, participants’ responses were rated on an 8- point scale (0 = not at all, 7 = very) for expressions of anger, annoyance, disgust, outrage, tension, upset, relief, contentment, happiness, sadness, surprise, and frightened. Given the possibility that the manifestation of anger in response to the emotion arousing film clips might also involve concomitant emotional reactions (beyond those measured by discrete rating scales), participants’ behavior was rated according to three global measures of expressivity: (1) In your opinion, how much did this person seem to be affected by the film that they were watching? (0 = not affected, 7 = very affected), (2) Overall, how expressive do you think this person was during the film? (0 = not expressive, 7 = very expressive), (3) In general, did the person’s gaze appear to be hard and fixed /staring, during the film? (0 = not fixed, 7 = very fixed). Two independent male coders, blind to experimental group, scored participants’ responses during anger clip 1 (i.e. during the period of emotion regulation) and during anger film 2 (i.e. during the period of emotion expression). With the exception of ratings for surprise, contentment, frightened and Q3 (‘Did the person’s gaze ...?’), the scores were highly correlated: mean Pearson’s r = .71, range .61 for frightened to .86 for Q2 (‘Overall, how expressive do you think this person was during the film?’). Because of their lower inter-rater reliability, the scales for surprise, contentment, frightened and Q3, were not analysed.

RESULTS

Compliance With Experimental Instructions: Self-Report Manipulation Check Rating Scales To assess the degree to which participants complied with the experimental instructions to suppress, express, or substitute feelings of anger during anger clip 1, participants’ responses to the self-report manipulation-check rating scales were examined. A 3 Between (Group: suppression, expression, substitution) × 2 Between (Gender: male, female) ANCOVA (using participants’ Total BEQ score as the covariate) was performed on participants’ ratings to the statement, ‘I felt emotions but tried to hide them’. This showed effects of Group, F(2, 41) = 43.64, p<.001, and Gender, F(1, 41) = 7.96, p = .007. To examine the source of the Group effect, an LSD test (with total BEQ score as a covariate) was performed showing that suppressors (M =5.63, SD = 0.96) agreed more highly with this statement than expressers (M =1.56, SD =0.77), p<.001, and substitutors (M = 3.69, SD =1.68), p<.001. Substitutors also agreed more highly with this statement than expressers, p<.001. Overall, females (M = 4.08, SD = 1.02) agreed more with this statement than males 296 HOSIE, MILNE, & McARTHUR

(M = 3.17, SD =1.25), p<.001. A comparable analysis was performed on participants’ ratings to the statement, ‘I reacted completely spontaneously’. This showed an effect of Group, F(2, 42) = 8.44, p<.001. The results of an LSD test showed that overall expressers (M = 4.38, SD =1.21) agreed more with this statement than suppressors (M =1.94, SD = 1.79), p<.001, and substitutors (M = 3.19, SD =1.75), p = .05. Substitutors also agreed more with the statement than suppressors (p =.04).

Compliance With Experimental Instructions: Expressive Behavior To examine the degree to which participants’ expressive behavior indicated compliance with the experimental instructions, change scores were computed by subtracting their scores on each of the expressive behavior rating scales during the neutral film from those obtained during anger clip 1. Table 1 shows the mean changes in expressive behavior as a function of Group and Gender. Separate 3 Between (Group: suppression, expression, substitution) × 2 Between (Gender: male versus female) ANCOVAs were performed on each of the rating scales (with the total BEQ score as the covariate). Table 1 shows that although suppressors showed less of an increase in expressive behavior during anger clip 1 than expressers and substitutors (as one would predict if they were following the experimental instruction), statistically significant effects of Group were not found. Only two significant effects were observed for Gender. Females looked more upset than males, F(1, 41) = 6.31, p = .02; and more tense than males, F(1, 41) = 5.56, p = .02.

Table 1. Mean Change in Expressive Behavior From Period During Neutral Film Clip to Period During Anger Clip 1 (i.e., Period of Emotion Regulation) as a Function of Group and Gender

Suppression Expression Substitution Measure Male Female Male Female Male Female

Q1 1.75 (1.28) 1.75 (1.39) 2.25 (2.25) 3.00 (0.76) 1.75 (1.04) 3.38 (2.00) Q2 0.88 (1.23) 1.23 (1.25) 1.50 (1.69) 2.13 (0.64) 1.00 (1.20) 2.00 (1.69) Anger 0.88 (1.36) 0.75 (1.16) 1.25 (2.43) 0.88 (1.25) 1.25 (1.75) 1.75 (0.89) Annoyance 0.69 (1.19) 1.00 (0.89) 1.25 (2.10) 0.63 (0.83) 0.75 (1.89) 1.38 (1.06) Outrage 0.50 (0.76) 0.50 (1.07) 1.00 (2.45) 1.00 (0.93) 1.38 (1.68) 1.88 (1.36) Disgust 0.63 (1.19) 1.75 (1.49) 1.38 (2.00) 2.13 (1.36) 1.50 (2.07) 2.50 (1.77) Upset 0.63 (1.41) 2.13 (1.36) 2.00 (1.51) 3.13 (0.83) 1.25 (2.05) 2.38 (2.22) Tension 0.25 (1.39) 2.13 (1.96) 2.00 (1.31) 2.38 (1.41) 1.13 (1.73) 2.38 (2.26) Relief 0.63 (0.52) 0.25 (0.46) 0.25 (0.46) 0.13 (0.35) 0.25 (0.71) 0.50 (0.76) Happiness –0.38 (0.52) –0.50 (0.76) –0.75 (0.71) –0.13 (0.35) –0.38 (0.52) 0.25 (0.71) Sadness 0.88 (1.13) 2.13 (1.55) 1.75 (1.39) 2.38 (2.20) 1.88 (1.81) 2.38 (1.85)

The After-Effects of Anger Regulation: Self-Report Emotion Rating Scales To examine the after-effects of anger regulation on the subjective experience of emotion we examined participants’ scores on the emotion self-report scales. Due to the lack of variability in participants’ ratings following the neutral film clip (the baseline data), analyses showed no differences between groups. Nevertheless, in order to control for individual variation amongst a minority of participants, change scores were computed by subtracting the self-report ratings obtained following the neutral film clip from those obtained following anger-clip 1 (i.e., following the period of emotion regulation). Preliminary analysis of the data as a function of Order of film clip (Cry Freedom versus The Ugliest Show on Earth) showed no significant effects of Order, or any interactions between Order, Group, and Gender. Accordingly, this factor was not considered further. Individual Group (suppression, expression, and substitution) × Gender (male versus female) ANCOVAs were performed on each of the self-report rating scales, with participants’ total BEQ score as the covariate. Table 2 shows the mean change in emotional state for each of the scales as a function of Group and Gender. Effects of gender were observed for ratings of disgust: F(2, 41) = 7.95, p = .007; sadness: F(2, 41) = 7.33, p = .01; and relief: F(2, 41) = 4.49, p = .04. Females reported that they were more disgusted than males (mean change in disgust: females = 5.50,

Table 2. Mean Change in Self-Report Ratings From pre Anger-Clip 1 (Period of Emotion Regulation) to Post Anger Clip 1 as a Function of Group and Gender

Suppression Expression Substitution Measure Male Female Male Female Male Female

Anger 3.00 (1.77) 5.88 (1.46) 2.63 (3.88) 3.88 (1.81) 4.13 (1.55) 4.13 (1.64) Annoyance 3.25 (0.89) 5.38 (2.00) 2.75 (2.61) 3.50 (1.51) 4.13 (1.13) 3.88 (1.96) Outrage 3.25 (1.83) 6.25 (0.89) 2.75 (2.19) 4.25 (2.19) 5.25 (1.49) 4.25 (1.75) Disgust 3.50 (1.60) 6.38 (0.74) 3.00 (2.27) 5.13 (1.64) 5.13 (1.73) 5.00 (1.69) Upset 2.00 (1.31) 5.00 (0.93) 2.38 (2.50) 3.25 (2.05) 4.38 (1.58) 4.25 (1.58) Tension 2.13 (1.73) 3.63 (2.39) 1.13 (1.13) 1.50 (1.77) 3.00 (1.77) 2.50 (2.45) Relief 0.88 (3.23) –0.63 (1.60) –0.25 (1.0) 0.63 (2.26) –1.50 (2.56) 0.63 (2.26) Contentment –2.13 (1.55) –2.75 (0.89) –1.88 (1.13) –2.50 (2.14) –2.63 (2.00) –2.50 (2.07) Happiness –1.50 (1.52) –2.25 (1.28) –1.50 (1.69) –1.88 (2.36) –2.25 (2.12) –2.13 (1.55) Sadness 2.38 (1.85) 5.00 (1.31) 1.88 (2.10) 3.75 (1.49) 2.88 (2.10) 3.63 (1.77) Surprise 0.25 (1.58) 1.13 (2.23) 1.25 (1.98) 1.25 (1.91) 1.75 (1.68) 1.25 (1.98) Frightened 0.38 (0.52) 1.88 (1.55) 0.75 (1.49) 1.25 (1.49) 0.75 (1.04) 2.00 (1.77) Swearing 0.25 (0.50) 3.40 (1.14) 2.50 (2.65) 2.25 (2.06) 2.63 (2.00) 2.25 (1.91) Shouting 0.50 (1.00) 1.60 (1.14) 1.25 (2.50) 2.50 (2.89) 2.00 (1.77) 2.00 (2.14) Hitting 0.50 (1.00) 0.80 (0.84) 0.25 (0.50) 2.00 (2.83) 1.63 (1.60) 1.88 (2.17) Banging 0.00 (0.00) 0.60 (0.55) 0.50 (1.00) 2.25 (2.06) 1.25 (1.04) 1.38 (1.51)

Note: Standard Deviations are shown in parentheses. 298 HOSIE, MILNE, & McARTHUR

SD = 1.36, males = 3.88, SD = 1.87). Females also rated themselves as sadder than males (mean change in sadness: females = 4.13, SD = 1.52, males = 2.38, SD = 2.01); and more relieved than males (mean change in relief: females = .71, SD = 2.59, males = –.79, SD =1.73). Statistically significant interactions between group and gender were observed for participants’ self-report ratings of anger, F(2, 41) = 3.31, p = .04, outrage, F(2, 41) = 6.02, p = .005, disgust, F(2, 41) = 3.58, p = .007, and upset, F(2, 41) = 5.03, p = .01. To examine the source of each interaction, LSD tests were conducted (again with BEQ total score as a covariate). Analysis of the interaction for anger showed that female suppressors reported higher levels of anger than male suppressors, p = .002. Moreover, female suppressors rated themselves as more angry than female expressers, p = .03, and more angry than female substituters, p = .05. Analysis of the interaction for outrage showed a similar pattern of results: female suppressors reported that they felt more outraged than male suppressors, p = .001. And, as in the case of anger, female suppressors rated themselves as more outraged than female expressers, p = .03, and female substitutors, p = .02. In contrast, male substituters rated themselves as more outraged than male suppressors, p = .05, and male expressers, p = .005. Analysis of disgust showed that female suppressors were more disgusted than male suppressors, p = .001. Female expressers also rated themselves as more disgusted than male expressers, p = .01. Male substitutors rated themselves as more disgusted than male suppressors, p = .06, and male expressers, p =.01. Finally, analysis of the interaction for upset showed that female suppressors were more upset than male suppressors, p<.001. Female suppressors were also more upset than female expressers, p = .03. In contrast male substituters rated themselves as more upset than male suppressors, p = .004, and male expressers, p = .01. Analysis of the anger-action statements showed an effect of Group for the statement “I feel like banging on the table”, F(2, 26) = 4.67, p = .02. This showed that expressers agreed more highly with this statement than suppressors, p = .03, and substitutors, p =.02. For the statement, “I feel like swearing”, there was a significant interaction of Group by Gender, F(2, 26) = 4.90, p = .02. This showed that female suppressors felt more like swearing than male suppressors, p = .005. Although the contrasts were not significant, female suppressors felt more like swearing than female expressers, and female substitutors. In contrast, male substitutors reported that they felt more like swearing than male suppressors, p = .02.

The After-Effects of Anger Regulation: Compliance With Experimental Instructions Prior to watching anger clip 2, participants were instructed to disregard their previous instructions to suppress, express or substitute (depending upon the group to which they had been assigned) and to relax and respond naturally and spontaneously to the second film clip. In order to ascertain that they had complied with this change to the experimental instructions, separate Group (suppression, expression, substitution) × Gender (male, female) factorial ANCOVAs (with BEQ total as the covariate) were performed on THE AFTER-EFFECTS OF REGULATING ANGER AND ANGER-RELATED EMOTIONS 299 participants’ ratings to the statements, ‘I felt emotions but tried to hide them’ and ‘I reacted completely spontaneously’. Analysis of the first question revealed no significant effects of Group, F(2, 41) = 1.22, p > .05 or Gender (F, 1, 41) = 1.29, p > .05. Essentially, all of the groups disagreed with the statement, ‘I felt emotions but tried to hide them’ (suppressors: M = 1.50, SD = 1.28; expressers (M = 1.75, SD = 0.87; substitutors: M =2.31, SD = 1.90). Analysis of question 2 (‘I reacted completely spontaneously’), however, revealed an effect of Group, F(2, 41) = 4.60, p = .02. The results of an LSD test showed that suppressors (M = 5.63, SD = 1.45) agreed more highly with this statement than expressers (M =4.50, SD = 1.35), p = .02. Moreover, substitutors (M =5.75, SD = 0.89) also agreed more highly with the statement than expressers, p = .008.

The After-Effects of Anger Regulation: Expressive Behavior During Anger Clip 2 To compare the after-effects of regulating anger, during anger clip 1, on subsequent expressions of behavior, during anger clip 2, change scores were computed by subtracting participants’ scores on each of the expressive behavior rating scales during the neutral film from those obtained during anger film clip 2. Table 3 shows the mean change scores for participants’ expressive behavior as a function of Group and Gender. Separate Group (suppression, expression, substitution) × Gender (male versus female) factorial ANCOVAs (with the total BEQ score as the covariate) were performed on each of the variables. An effect of Gender was observed for Q1 (How much did the person seem to be affected by the film?), F(1, 41) = 7.68, p = .01: females were more

Table 3. Mean Change in Expressive Behavior From Period During Neutral Film Clip to Period During Anger Clip 2 (i.e. Period of Emotion Expression) as a Function of Group and Gender

Suppression Expression Substitution Measure Male Female Male Female Male Female

Q1 2.63 (0.74) 3.25 (1.67) 2.25 (1.75) 2.50 (0.76) 1.50 (1.41) 3.63 (1.19) Q2 1.63 (1.30) 3.00 (1.60) 1.25 (1.58) 1.88 (0.83) 1.13 (1.25) 2,25 (1.83) Anger 1.13 (1.36) 1.75 (1.91) 1.25 (1.83) 0.50 (0.76) 0.50 (0.93) 1.38 (1.41) Annoyance 1.00 (1.60) 1.50 (1.51) 1.13 (1.64) 0.63 (0.74) 0.38 (0.19) 1.13 (1.88) Outrage 0.63 (1.41) 2.50 (1.77) 1.38 (2.20) 0.75 (0.89) 0.38 (1.06) 1.50 (1.69) Disgust 1.63 (1.19) 3.50 (1.93) 1.88 (2.10) 1.13 (0.99) 1.25 (1.04) 2.75 (1.98) Upset 1.50 (1.41) 3.13 (1.36) 2.00 (1.77) 2.38 (0.74) 1.25 (1.39) 2.88 (1.55) Tension 0.25 (1.39) 2.13 (1.96) 2.00 (1.31) 2.38 (1.41) 1.13 (1.73) 2.38 (2.26) Relief 0.13 (0.35) 0.00 (0.53) 0.50 (0.76) 0.38 (0.74) 0.13 (0.64) 0.13 (0.35) Happiness –0.38 (0.52) –0.50 (0.76) –0.75 (0.71) 0.13 (0.35) –0.50 (0.53) –0.25 (0.71) Sadness 1.50 (1.60) 2.38 (1.06) 1.63 (1.69) 2.13 (1.25) 1.25 (0.71) 2.88 (1.24)

Note: Q1: In your opinion, how much did this person seem to be affected by the film that they were watching? Q2: Overall, how expressive do you think this person was during the film? Standard Deviations are shown in parentheses. 300 HOSIE, MILNE, & McARTHUR affected than males (mean change score: females = 3.13, SD = 1.20, males = 2.13, SD = 1.30). Gender differences were also found for Q2 (How expressive do you think this person was during the film clip?), F(1, 41) = 8.29, p = .01: females were rated as more expressive than males (mean change score: females = 2.38, SD = 1.42, males = 1.33, SD = 1.38). Finally effects of Gender were found for upset: F(1, 41) = 9.96, p = .003: sadness, F(1, 41) = 9.64, p = .003; and tension: F(1, 41) = 11.88, p = .001. Females looked more upset than males (mean change in upset: females = 2.79, SD =1.22, males = 1.58, SD = 1.53). Females looked sadder than males (mean change in sadness: females = 2.46, SD = 1.19, males = 1.46, SD = 1.33). Females looked more tense than males (mean change in tension: females = 2.83, SD = 1.47, males = 1.38, SD =1.71). Statistically significant effects of Group by Gender did not emerge. However, marginal Group by Gender interactions were observed for participants’ expressions of outrage, F(2, 41) = 3.07, p = .06, and disgust, F(2, 41) = 3.07, p = .06. To test the source of each interaction, LSD tests were conducted. The interaction for outrage showed that female suppressors looked more outraged than male suppressors (mean change in outrage: females = 2.50, SD = 1.77, males = 0.63, SD = 1.77) p = .02. Female suppressors also looked more outraged than female expressers (mean change in outrage: suppressors = 2.50, SD = 1.77, expressers = 0.75, SD =0.89), p =.03. The interaction for disgust showed that female suppressors looked more disgusted than male suppressors (mean change in disgust: females = 3.50, SD = 1.93, males = 1.63, SD = 1.19) p = .03. Female suppressors also looked more disgusted than female expressers (mean change in disgust: suppressors = 3.50, SD = 1.93, expressers = 1.13, SD = 0.99), p = .006; and female substitutors looked more disgusted than female expressers (mean change in disgust: substitutors = 2.75, SD = 1.98, expressers = 1.13, SD = 0.99), p = .05.

DISCUSSION

The aim of this study was to compare the consequences, for males and females, of different strategies for regulating anger. The effects of expressing anger were compared with two commonly used strategies for regulating emotion: suppression (a strategy that involves inhibiting the outward expression of emotion), and substitution (a strategy that involves replacing feelings of anger by invoking thoughts of a happy memory). Research into the concurrent effects of emotion regulation, and into the effects of thought suppression, led us to predict that participants who had been instructed to substitute their feelings of anger with an anger incompatible emotion would rate themselves as less angry than participants who had been instructed to suppress of express their feelings of anger. We also anticipated that the beneficial effects of this strategy would lead to a reduction in behavioral displays of anger when participants were exposed to a further anger-arousing event, viz., the second anger arousing film clip. Our predictions regarding the effectiveness of suppression in reducing the experience and expression of anger were more exploratory. However, one possibility that we considered was that suppressing expressions of anger might paradoxically result in an THE AFTER-EFFECTS OF REGULATING ANGER AND ANGER-RELATED EMOTIONS 301 increase in self-report ratings and behavioral expressions of anger and anger-related emotions.

Anger Regulation: Divergent Consequences for Males and Females The major result of this study was the observation of an increase in self-reports of anger and anger-related emotions after a period of suppression, an effect similar to the rebound effect in thought suppression. However, rather than manifesting itself as a main effect of regulatory strategy, this effect was qualified by an interaction with gender. Specifically, females who had suppressed anger reported feeling more angry, outraged, upset and disgusted in comparison to male suppressors and also in comparison to females who had either expressed anger or substituted anger with feelings of happiness. Interestingly, females who had suppressed anger also reported that they felt more like swearing than male suppressors and female expressers and substituters. In contrast, males who had substituted feelings of anger for happiness reported themselves as feeling more upset, outraged and disgusted compared to female substituters, and compared to both male expressers and male suppressors. One possible explanation for the gender differences observed in this study relates to the tension that exists between the functions of anger in everyday life and the cultural rules that guide its expression. Anger is regarded as a high-activation emotion that energises human behavior enabling individuals to overcome impediments. It has also been described as an emotion that ‘demands expression’ (Averill, 1983). However, despite its adaptive function and expressive nature, overt displays of anger, particularly by females, in most cultures, are discouraged from an early age (Radke-Yarrow & Kochanska, 1990). One possible outcome of the greater pressure upon females to conceal anger is that they have developed and rely upon more effective, cognitively based strategies for regulating this emotion. If this were the case, one would predict that females would benefit more from a strategy such as anger-substitution and less from suppression, than males – a finding reflected by this study. This explanation, however, does not entirely explain why females should experience heightened levels of anger (and anger related emotions) as a result of suppression, relative to males. One possible explanation comes from the theorising of Macrae et al. (1994), who suggest that rebound effects in cognition arise from repetitive priming. It is conceivable that in the context of the present study, when participants were required to use an unfamiliar regulatory strategy, they employed sub-vocal rehearsal of verbally coded self-instructions to maintain control. For example, females engaging in behavioral suppression might have done so by rehearsing statements such as, ‘I must not look angry’; — thereby verbally priming the very emotions and behaviors they intended to control. A second, related, explanation for the effects is suggested by the theorizing of Wegner (see Wegner, 1994; Wegner & Bargh, 1998). Wegner suggests that when people engage in conscious control of cognition or behavior, an unconscious monitoring process is activated to detect failures of control. When a control failure is detected, this monitoring process brings the particular cognition or behavior to consciousness, thereby increasing it’s accessibility. In the context of emotion, we propose that when people are 302 HOSIE, MILNE, & McARTHUR required to employ their preferred or default emotion regulation strategy, they do so automatically, through long practice using that mode of regulation. Regulation in this instance is relatively effortless and requires minimal attentional resources. On the other hand, the requirement to use a less familiar regulation strategy is likely to involve effortful, conscious control, which will in turn lead to heightened levels of self monitoring and increased use of attentional resources. The implication of this contention is that if females generally employ cognitively based emotion regulation strategies, such as substitution, and males routinely employ behavioral strategies, such as suppression, when asked to employ their default strategy in the present study, they were able to do so effortlessly and automatically. As a result, no rebound effect occurred. On the other hand, requiring males to employ substitution and females to employ suppression, consumed cognitive resources, and an emotional rebound occurred on release from effortful control.

The Effects of Anger Regulation on Males’ and Females’ Expressive Behavior The analysis of participants’ expressive behavior served two purposes. During anger film 1 participants’ emotion-expressive behavior was analyzed in order to assess the degree to which they complied with the experimental instructions. During anger film 2, participants’ emotion-expressive behavior was examined in order to investigate the behavioral after-effects of anger regulation, when participants were exposed to a second anger- provoking stimulus. Despite suppressors reporting that they were more likely to ‘hide their emotions’ and behave ‘less spontaneously’ than either expressers or substituters, significant differences in their behavior were not found during anger film 1. However, analysis of participants’ behavior during anger film 2 revealed group differences in participants’ self-report ratings of how spontaneously they behaved (suppressors reported behaving more spontaneously than expressers and substituters). Moreover, analysis of participants’ emotion-specific behaviors showed that female suppressors were rated as looking more outraged and disgusted compared to male suppressors, and compared to female expressers and substituters. These results point to the possibility of a rebound in expressive behavior following a period of emotion regulation. In addition, it appears that this rebound is greater for females than for males — a finding commensurate with the emotion self-report ratings following anger film 1.

Problems and Directions for Future Research Clearly, further research is required to elucidate the observed findings. We have suggested that males and females might spontaneously engage in different methods of anger regulation in everyday life, a finding consistent with recent research by Simon and Nath (2004), showing that when feeling angry, females are more likely to resort to verbal coping strategies than males. Research using a diary methodology might help to illuminate further, the types of regulatory strategies that males and females deploy spontaneously in everyday life when their anger is aroused. In addition, laboratory-based studies that probe male and female participants for the strategies that they use in order to THE AFTER-EFFECTS OF REGULATING ANGER AND ANGER-RELATED EMOTIONS 303 comply with instructions to suppress anger might also help to explain the mechanisms by which different regulatory strategies are achieved. The use of secondary tasks designed to interfere selectively with verbal processing or executive function during the emotion- eliciting experience might also prove fruitful in terms of assessing the relative importance of linguistic and cognitive processing during emotion regulation. Our findings suggest that whereas for females, suppressing anger through behavioral inhibition is counterproductive, for males, substituting feelings of anger with happy thoughts is detrimental. One question arising from these results is whether comparable after-effects would be observed following the regulation of other emotions. Are the effects unique to anger, or might they be found also for emotions that are comparable in valence and arousal? It is tempting to speculate that anger possesses certain unique characteristics, such as its need for expression and high activation level that renders it different from other emotions. It is possible therefore that the emotional and behavioral consequences of regulating anger might also prove to be unique. In the present study, when participants were requested to suppress and/or express their emotions in response to the anger-arousing film clip, marked elevations in self- reports of disgust and outrage, in addition to anger, were observed. Although these findings are consistent with the observation that anger film clips tend to elicit a blend of negative affective states (Gross & Levenson, 1995), we believe that there is an additional difficulty associated with attempting to arouse anger in the laboratory through the use of film stimuli. Specifically, we suggest that film stimuli (such as those used in the current study) elicit ‘empathic anger’, a unique form of anger aroused through observing the persecution or victimization of an innocent subject (Hoffman, 2000). It is not surprising therefore that disgust (or perhaps moral indignation), and outrage appeared prominently in participants’ emotion self-report ratings and to a lesser extent, behavioral displays in this study. Future research might fruitfully explore the after-effects of different elicitors of anger, such as anger arising from frustration, or personal humiliation.

REFERENCES

Anastasi, A., Cohen, N., & Spatz, D. 1948. A study of fear and anger in college students through the controlled diary method. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 73, 243–249. Averill, J. R. 1982. Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag. Averill, J. R. 1983. Studies on anger and aggression: Implications for theories of emotion. American Psychologist, 38, 1145–1160. Boden, J. M., & Baumeister, R. F. 1997. Repressive coping: Distraction using pleasant thoughts and memories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 45–62. Brebner, J. 2003. Gender and emotions. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 387–394. Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., Lynch, R. S., & Morris, C. D. 1996. The expression of anger and its consequences. Behavior, Research & Therapy, 34, 575–590. Everson, S. A., Goldberg, D. E., Kaplan, G. A., Julkunen, J., & Salonen, J. T. 1998. Anger expression and incident hypertension. Psychosomatic Medicine, 60, 730–735. Fischer, A. H., Mosquera, P. M. R., van Vianen, A. E. M., & Manstead, A. S. R. 2004. Gender and culture differences in emotion. Emotion, 4, 87–94. Frost, W., & Averill, R. J. 1982. Differences between men and women in everyday experience of anger. In 304 HOSIE, MILNE, & McARTHUR

R. J. Averill (Ed.), Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. (pp. 281–316). New York: Springer- Verlag. Gallacher, J. E. J., Yarnell, J. W. G., Sweetnam, P. M., Elwood, P. C., & Stansfeld, S. A. 1999. Anger and incident heart disease in the Caerphilly study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 61, 446–453. Gates, G. S. 1926. An observational study of anger. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 9, 325–331. Gross, J. J. 1998. Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 224–237. Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. 1995. Facets of emotional expressivity: three self-report factors and their correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 555–568. Gross, J. J. & Levenson, R. W. 1993. Emotional suppression: physiology, self-report, and expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 970–986. Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. 1995. Emotion elicitation using films. Cognition and Emotion, 9, 87–108. Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. 1997. Hiding feelings: The acute effects of inhibiting negative and positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 95–103. Hoffman, M. L. 2000. Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge University Press. Jaubert, A. 1994. Claude Monet. The colour of the moment. Location, UK: Le Channel Ltd. Kassinove, H., & Sukhodolsky, D. G. 1995. Anger disorders: Basic science and practice issues. In H. Kassinove (Ed.), Anger disorders: Definition, diagnosis and treatment (pp. 1–26). Washington DC: Taylor & Francis. Kring, A. M. 2000. Gender and Anger. In A. H. Fischer (Ed.), Gender and emotion: social psychological perspectives (pp. 211–232). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kring, A. M., Smith, D. A., & Neale, J. M. 1994. Individual differences in dispositional expressiveness: Development and validation of the Emotional Expressivity Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 934–949. Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., & Jetten, J. 1994. Out of sight mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 808–817. Meltzer, H. 1933. Students’ adjustment in anger. Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 285–309. Monteith, M. J., Spicer, C. V., & Tooman, G. D. 1998. Consequences of stereotype suppression: Stereotypes on AND not on the rebound. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 355–377. Phillips, T. 1998. The ugliest show on earth. London, UK: Animal Defenders. Radke-Yarrow, M., & Kochanska, G. 1990. Anger in young children. In N. L. Stein, B. Leventhal, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Psychological and biological approaches to emotion (pp. 297–310). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. 2000. Emotion regulation and memory: The cognitive costs of keeping one’s cool. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 410–424. Richardson, F. 1918. The psychology and pedagogy of anger. Baltimore, MD: Warwick & York. Romer, L., & Borkovec, T. D. 1994. Effects of suppressing thoughts about emotional material. Journal of Abnormal psychology, 103, 467–474. Simon, R. W., & Nath, L. E. 2004. Gender and emotion in the United States: do men and owmen differ in self-reports of feelings and expressive behavior? American Journal of Sociology, 109, 1137–1176. Spencer, N., Briley, J., & Attenborough, R. 1987. Cry Freedom. MCA/Universal Home Video. Los Angeles, California. Spielberger, C. D. 1988. State-Trait Expression Inventory, STAXI, Professional Manual: Odessa, Florida, Psychological Assessment Resources. Timmers, M., Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. R. 1998. Gender differences in motives for regulating emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 974–985. Venable, V. L., Carlson, C. R., & Wilson, J. 2001. The role of anger and depression in recurrent headache. Headache, 41, 21–30. Wegner, D. M. 1994. Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 34–52. Wegner, D. M., & Bargh, J. A. 1998. Control and automaticity in social life. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Wegner, D. M., Erber, R., & Zanakos, S. 1993. Ironic processes in the mental control of mood and mood- related thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1093–1104. THE AFTER-EFFECTS OF REGULATING ANGER AND ANGER-RELATED EMOTIONS 305

Wegner, D. M., Schneider, D. J., Carter, S. III., & White, L. 1987. Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 409–418.

(Manuscript received May 9, 2005; Revision accepted October 18, 2005)