RESOLVING ANGER VIA TWO DIFFERENT EMOTION REGULATION STRATEGIES By Kayla R. Schuster Anger is characterized by three appraisal dimensions, harm, responsibility, and choice (Lazarus, 1991) and can be regulated through reappraisal or suppression (Gross, 1998). Previous research has suggested that reappraisal is a successful down-regulating strategy for negative emotions such as anger (Mauss, Cook, Cheng & Gross, 2007), whereas suppression may increase unpleasant emotional experiences and increase further attempts to avoid emotions and stimuli that elicit specific negative emotions (Boden, Westermann, McRae, Kuo, Alvarez, Kulkami, & Bonn-Miller, 2013). However, no study so far has investigated the effect of these two regulation strategies on anger appraisals. The current study sought to investigate differences in cognitive appraisals between anger events that were resolved through reappraisal and suppression emotion regulation techniques. Participants were made angry and then half of them were given an apology letter and the other half received no apology letter. Half of the participants were then asked to regulate their emotions via reappraisal (i.e., to look at the situation from a different perspective), while the other half were asked to suppress their emotions (i.e., to not show what they felt). Analyses indicated that both reappraisal and suppression techniques indeed reduced anger over time. Further analyses revealed that participants who were asked to suppress their emotions after they did not receive an apology letter were significantly angrier than participants in the other three conditions. Cognitive appraisals of anger were not affected by the experimental manipulations. The current study proposes a new methodological approach for measuring anger intensity and anger appraisals, and suggests that the difference in outcomes of the two regulation techniques is more complex than prior research suggested. RESOLVING ANGER VIA TWO DIFFERENT EMOTION REGULATION STRATEGIES by Kayla R. Schuster A Thesis Submitted In Partial Fulfillment ofthe Requirements For the Degree of Master ofScience in Psychology Cognitive Affective at The University ofWisconsin Oshkosh Oshkosh WI 54901-8621 May 2014 COMMITTEE APPROVAL DEAN OF GRADUATE STUDIES _----L.JI!nL..:....!....=L!l:::..lo-.~ffA-=J<:..Ywn~~=---____ Advisor ~%C~a~ 5/zo/w/'f Date Approved Date Approved --==::::Q:.......L4---:V~LC~ Member FORMAT APPROVAL 5L~2'f' Date Approved -++-/!--+-/dvt.>..=--::-'. ~4~./1--====-........-::__Member Date Approveli "[/ 21J I £-V Date Approved ~ /1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES…………………………….………………………………….iv LIST OF FIGURES…………………………….... .................................................v INTRODUCTION…………………………….... ...................................................1 Reappraisal Versus Suppression ....................................................2 Antecedent-Focused Emotion Regulation Strategies.......................3 Response-Focused Emotion Regulation Strategies .........................6 Suppression In The Clinical Field ..................................................15 Appraisal Dimensions: Harm, Responsibility, And Choice ......................18 Harm ..................................................19 Responsibility ..................................................19 Choice ..................................................20 Anger Motivates Retaliation ..................................................21 Current Study and Hypotheses ..................................................22 METHOD…………….…………………………….... .........................................27 Participants ..................................................27 Procedure ..................................................27 Anger Instigation ..................................................29 Feedback Messages ..................................................29 Anger Resolving Strategy ..................................................30 Dependent Measures ..................................................31 Harm ..................................................31 Responsibility ..................................................31 Choice ..................................................32 Manipulation Checks ..................................................32 RESULTS…………….…………………………….... .........................................33 DISCUSSION…………….…………………………….......................................46 Anger Measurement ..................................................46 Cognitive Appraisal Dimensions ..................................................48 Limitations ..................................................50 Future Directions and Implications ..................................................52 REFERENCES…………….…………………………….... .................................55 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Predictions for Anger Intensity at the End of the Study as a Function of Letter and Regulation ........................................ 23 Table 2. Predictions for the Appraisal Dimensions of Anger at the End of the Study as a Function of Letter and Regulation..... 25 Table 3. Summary of Alpha Values for Anger Indices ...................... 34 Table 4. Summary of Means and Standard Deviations for Time Measurements of Anger......................................................... 35 Table 5. Summary of Means and Standard Deviations For Harm, Responsibility, and Choice .................................................... 44 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Gross’ Emotion Regulation Model...................................... 11 Figure 2. Tracking of Anger Intensity Levels Across Time ............... 35 Figure 3. Anger Intesnity Level at Time 1 versus Time 2.................. 38 Figure 4. Anger Intensity Level at Time 2 versus Time 3.................. 39 Figure 5. Anger Intensity Level at Time 3 versus Time 4 versus Time 5 in the No Apology Condition ................................. 41 v 1 Introduction Emotions consist of multiple aspects that influence individuals psychologically, socially, and biologically on a daily basis. Given that the social situation frequently dictates our behavior in both public and private situations, we need to regulate our emotions regularly. It is thus essential to understand the underlying mechanisms of emotion regulation strategies that we utilize in order to increase or decrease emotional intensity. James Gross’s model of emotion regulation (1998) has been a standing ground for developing new tests of emotion regulation processes. However, improvements to this model can still be made, both methodologically and conceptually. It is important to understand what is actually happening when the resolution of an emotion occurs, and specifically to this study, to answer the question of what happens when people are made angry and then asked to regulate their anger. The current study sought to investigate differences in self-reported cognitive appraisals based on anger events that were regulated through either an antecedent- or a response-focused emotion regulation. The current study had two theoretical goals. One of the goals was to track anger intensity levels throughout the study to understand what happens during anger regulation. To note, Gross’s prior research has not previously looked at tracking anger while measuring appraisal dimensions of the emotion. By contrast, this study utilizes a novel procedure of investigating anger regulation. Specifically, the current study explored what happened after anger was instigated, reduced (or not) by an apology, and then regulated 2 via two emotion regulation strategies (reappraisal and suppression). In the current study, anger was first instigated, and then, once it was determined that participants experienced anger, participants were asked to regulate their feelings using one of the two techniques. A second goal of this study was to understand how anger regulation affects self- perception of anger antecedents. In a conceptual attempt to map the underlying and unique dimensions of anger, Lazarus proposed that anger is characterized by three appraisals, harm, responsibility and choice. Appraisals have been noted to vary in degree of intensity (i.e., harm may be perceived as high or low). These three characteristics of anger were assessed in this study to test whether regulation strategies affected these appraisals differently. In other words, the current study applied Lazarus’s appraisal model to Gross’s conceptual framework of emotion regulation to better understand process by which the two strategies influence anger intensity. Reappraisal versus Suppression Gross (1998) introduced two strategies through which we regulate an emotion: antecedent-focused and response-focused. An underlying idea is that, in the case of anger, an individual is able to cope with the harm that has been caused by another person to one’s self. Some emotion regulation strategies work effectively, while others do not. The effectiveness of the strategies is dependent upon what aspects of emotion one focuses on: emotional intensity, outward expressions of emotion (facial expressions), physiological responses, or behavioral responses. When one is angered, antecedent- 3 focused emotion regulation may decrease emotional intensity, physiological responses, and expressive signs of negative emotions, whereas response-focused may only decrease emotional expression (Gross, 1998). Antecedent Focused Emotion Regulation Strategies. Individuals may cope with their emotions in different ways dependent upon their interaction with others, the environment,