ChapterPDF Available

Anger coping strategies and anger regulation


Abstract and Figures

The present review summarizes the current research on anger coping and experiencing. We proceeded step by step, starting from the structure of anger coping, covering the influence of anger coping on somatic health, the influence of anger coping on psychic health, and finally we discussed the interpersonal domain of anger coping, including dyadic interactions. The main emphasis was given on the shift in the conceptualization of anger coping from the simple descriptions of coping mechanisms towards the dynamic explanations within the interpersonal context. We discussed contextual factors, such as situational specificity, relative status of the individual within the social group, interpersonal targeting of anger expression, perceived level of injustice in anger elicitors, etc. Further, we also focused on the domain of the nonverbal expression of anger. Since nonverbal expression constitutes the essential part of emotional coping, we surveyed some aspects of this subfield, such as facial expression of anger, energetical costs of nonverbal expression of anger, intrapersonal emotional transfer, and emotional transfer of anger between individuals.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Summary. – The present review summarizes the current research on an-
ger coping and experiencing. We proceeded step by step, starting from the
structure of anger coping, covering the influence of anger coping on somatic
health, the influence of anger coping on psychic health, and finally we dis-
cussed the interpersonal domain of anger coping, including dyadic interac-
tions. The main emphasis was given on the shift in the conceptualization of
anger coping from the simple descriptions of coping mechanisms towards
the dynamic explanations within the interpersonal context. We discussed
contextual factors, such as situational specificity, relative status of the indi-
vidual within the social group, interpersonal targeting of anger expression,
perceived level of injustice in anger elicitors, etc. Further, we also focused
on the domain of the nonverbal expression of anger. Since nonverbal expres-
sion constitutes the essential part of emotional coping, we surveyed some
aspects of this subfield, such as facial expression of anger, energetical costs
of nonverbal expression of anger, intrapersonal emotional transfer, and emo-
tional transfer of anger between individuals.
Past investigation of anger coping focused mainly on the structure of
coping and on the description of coping mechanisms within the individual. Cur-
rently, some scholars pointed out that anger is a socially censored emotion, and
that it should be investigated in the context of social interactions and interpersonal
relationships (Keltner & Kring, 1998; Kring, 2000). Therefore, we will also later
discuss several contextual factors such as relative status in a social group and in-
terpersonal targeting of anger expression.
Anger Coping Strategies
and Anger Regulation
Radek Trnka and Iva Stuchlíková
This work was supported by the Czech Science Foundation (GAČR 406/09/0294).
In: Re-Constructing Emotional Spaces: From Experience to Regulation
Trnka R., Balcar K., Kuška M. (Eds.)
2011, Prague College of Psychosocial Studies Press: Prague
Further, Deffenbacher, Oetting, Lynch, & Morris (1996) noticed that previous
research of anger coping neglected the domain of nonverbal expression of anger.
Since this nonverbal expression constitutes the essential part of emotional coping,
we will pay attention to some aspects of this subfield, such as facial expression of
anger and energetical costs of nonverbal expression of anger.
To meet the mentioned aims we try to put together pieces of information from
different scientific fields. The present study aims to integrate relevant informati-
on from the research of stress and coping, clinical psychology, medical research,
social psychology, emotion research, and gender studies. A brief definition of the
emotion of anger is provided at the beginning of the chapter. Further, we focus on
the methods used for the assessment of anger coping and to the structure of anger
coping. In the following two parts, the impact of anger coping on physical and
mental health is briefly surveyed. The following part focuses on the interpersonal
domain of anger coping including gender differences. Finally, several possible
insights for future research are discussed.
Anger is defined as an emotional state characterized by “feelings of outrage and
annoyance” (Pérez-Nieto, Camunas, Cano-Vindel, Miguel-Tobal, & Iruarrizaga,
2000, p. 291). Hostility and aggression represent related constructs to anger, and
together they are sometimes considered as a triad: anger-hostility-aggression
(Pérez-Nieto et al., 2000). Aggression refers to “overt behavior defined by at-
tacking, destructive, or hurtful actions” (Harburg, Julius, Kaciroti, Gleiberman,
& Schork, 2003, p. 588), whereas hostility is defined as a “persistent negative
attitude towards others” (Pérez-Nieto et al., 2000, p. 291).
How can we approach anger from the methodological point of view? Seve-
ral typologies of anger coping strategies have emerged during past empirical re-
search. Anger-In/Anger-Out or suppressed/expressed anger belongs to the one of
the most discussed concepts. Anger-Out is defined as “the tendency to overtly
express anger, typically in negative, aggressive ways”, Anger-In as “the tendency
to experience but suppress the overt expression of anger” (Deffenbacher et al.,
1996, p. 576). These categories are usually assessed by subjective self-report mea-
sures such as the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory - STAXI (e.g., Forgays,
Forgays, & Spielberger, 1997; Pérez-Nieto et al., 2000; Martin & Dahlen, 2005;
originally developed by Spielberger, 1988), or the Anger Expression Scale (Burns,
Evon, & Strain-Saloum, 1999; Musante & Treiber, 2000; originally developed
by Spielberger, Johnson & Russell, 1985). Another category, Anger-Control, is
present in these instruments, and is defined as “the tendency to be patient, calm,
and modulate emotional and behavioral expression of anger” (Deffenbacher et
al., 1996, p. 576). Bartz, Blume, & Rose (1996) pointed out the limitations of
such self-report measures due to possible social desirability response bias. He also
proved (Bartz et al., 1996) that the level of Anger-Out is dependent on the level
of social desirability measured by the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale
(Crowne & Marlowe, 1964).
Previous research paid only little attention to the context where Anger-In/An-
ger-Out strategies are performed in daily life. Therefore, our team conducted a
study employing STAXI with innovated context-dependent scales (Stuchlíková
& Man, 2003). This innovated inventory was administrated to 215 Czech col-
lege students (119 females, 96 males). Participants reported different performance
of Anger-In/Anger-Out strategies in the home, work, and leisure time settings.
Interestingly, some gender-specific effects were found (see Figure 6.1). Women
reported more Anger-Out than men in the home and leisure time settings. Further,
women suppressed their anger in the work more than men. These results are con-
sistent with findings of Bongard & al’Absi (2003), where women reported greater
anger control and less overt anger expressions in the work than in the home set-
tings. In this study women also described themselves as having generally greater
Anger-Out then men. Interestingly, the gender differences were absent when anger
expression was measured by the simple anger expression STAXI scale, irrespec-
tively to social domains. Similar findings were reported also by others who did not
distinguish between social context or aggregated the data for all situations (e.g.,
Spielberger, 1988; Kopper & Epperson, 1991; Porter, Stone, & Schwartz, 1999).
Further, previous research has also demonstrated behavioral differences in the
coping of hostility and aggression between home and work settings (Bongard &
al’Absi, 2003). These contexts differ in the level of privacy, relations to potential
anger targets, and in power distance, all of which are the factors that influence the
expression of anger (Matsumoto, 1990; Underwood, Coie, & Herbsman, 1992).
Porter et al. (1999) also found that university students reported more open anger
expression in the private settings compared to the public settings.
In comparison with suppressed and expressed anger, researchers paid less at-
tention to another general category called “repressed anger”. Anger repressors de-
nied their strong experience of anger both to themselves and to others (Burns et al.,
1999). However, such anger repressors showed very high physiological reactivity
during stress situations (Jorgensen, Gelling, & Kliner, 1992; Miller, 1993). This
intrapersonal defense mechanism represents very interesting anger coping strategy
that can have also negative influence on the one’s state of health (Greer & Watson,
1985). Repressors describe themselves as more controlling and expressing anger
to a lesser extent. Those who repress anger proved the smallest changes in cardio-
vascular reaction when working in mild mental stress condition (Stuchlíková &
Man, 2002). Egloff & Krohne (1996) showed that repressors reported less fear, sad-
ness and hostility after failure. Some studies demonstrated that repressors have diffi-
culty with the open expression of anger (e.g., Kiecolt-Glaser & Greenberg, 1983;
Taylor, 1970). Pauls & Stemmler (2003) showed that highly defensive copers
showed low levels of negative affect in their behavior during anger induction. Thus,
the repressor’s reactivity to negative feedback or social disaproval depends on the
Several researchers considered the Anger-In/Anger-Out dichotomy too nar-
row. The self-report instrument, the Behavioral Anger Response Questionnaire
– BARQ (Hogan & Linden, 2004; Hogan & Linden, 2005; Miers, Rieffe, Ter-
wogt, Cowan, & Linden, 2007; originally developed by Linden et al., 2003), is
built on the previous measures, STAXI, but it works with the more precise diver-
sification of anger coping strategies. This model with six factors consists of Di-
rect Anger-Out, Assertion, Diffusion, Avoidance, Rumination, and Support-Seek-
Another self-report instrument was developed by Zeman, Shipman, & Penza-
Clyve (2001) specifically for children. The Children’s Sadness and Anger Man-
agement Scale (CSMS) includes three anger and sadness coping strategies - In-
hibition, Dysregulated Expression, and Emotion Regulation Coping. Inhibition
assesses the “masking or suppression of emotional expression”, Dysregulated
Expression measures “culturally inappropriate expression of anger and sadness”,
and Emotion Regulation Coping examines “perceptions of the ability to cope with
anger and sadness” (Zeman, Shipman, & Suveg, 2002, p. 395).
Anderson & Lawler (1995) used the Anger Recall Interview (ARI) for deter-
mining anger expression coping strategies. Participants were asked to recall a time
when they had become very angry. Four categories were later created based on
Figure 6.1 Gender differences in Anger-Out/Anger-In in various contexts (Source:
Stuchlíková & Man, 2003).
Anger-Out scale Anger-In scale
Home Home
gender: women men
Lesure time Lesure timeWork Work
the analysis of their responses in these semi-structured interviews - suppression,
cognition, assertion, and aggression.
The Anger Strategies Scale (Ronan, Keeney, Date, & Ronan, 1996; Ronan,
Dreer, Dollard, & Ronan, 2004) assessed 17 effective and 17 ineffective coping
strategies that are used by people for dealing with high-conflict situations. Ef-
fective coping strategies involve, e.g., accepting responsibility, compromising,
describing the problem, paraphrasing/reflecting, or describing past positive be-
haviors. Ineffective coping strategies cover, e.g., denying responsibility, comp-
laining, interrupting, criticizing, describing past negative behaviors, or name-call-
Eight other anger coping strategies were assessed by Willner, Brace, & Phillips
(2005) using the Profile of Anger Coping Skills - PACS. These categories in-
volved using relaxation skills, walk away, do something else, ask for help, rethink
the situation, use humor, be assertive, and count to 10 (pausing before expressing
anger, giving the individual time to think).
Goodwin (2006) used a series of open, self-report questions for assessment of
anger coping behaviors (e.g., “What do you usually do when you get angry?”).
Reported activities were later grouped into four general categories - substance use
(alcohol, drugs, cigarettes), physical activities (exercise, biking, walking), emo-
tional coping (talking to someone, praying, listening to music) and aggressive be-
havior (fighting with someone, arguing).
There is an increased interest in anger coping strategies in current medical re-
search due to their impact on the risk of coronary heart disease (e.g., Fava, An-
derson, & Rosenbaum, 1990) and cancer susceptibility and recurrence (Greer &
Watson, 1985). Generally, anger causes a higher risk of cardiovascular disease,
because of the exaggerated cardiovascular reactivity to stress (Houston, 1994;
Suarez, Kuhn, Schanberg, Williams, & Zimmerman 1998), especially in the situ-
ations of interpersonal provocation (Suarez et al., 1998). Both the influence of
Anger-In/Anger-Out coping strategies and the influence of different personality
types were investigated in previous studies with respect to the health risk in anger
emotional processing and anger emotional expression.
The longitudinal study of Harburg et al. (2003) assessed anger-coping types
based on the responses to two hypothetical anger-provoking situations involving
injustices perpetrated by a power figure (unjustified “attack” of a policemen and
unjustified “attack” of a spouse). Responses were evaluated as either the expres-
sion of anger or the suppression of anger, analogically to Anger-In/Anger-Out
coping strategies. Results showed that Anger-In strategy predicted earlier mortal-
ity for women, but not for men (Harburg et al., 2003). Heart rate, cardiac output,
and changes in peripheral resistance were measured as responses to experimen-
tally induced unjust situations in another study (Girdler, Turner, Sherwood, &
Light, 1990). Women showed greater increases in heart rate, cardiac output, and
decreased peripheral resistance than men (Girdler et al., 1990). Gallacher, Yarnell,
Sweetnam, Elwood, & Stansfeld (1999) showed that individuals with higher levels
of Anger-In were more stricken by coronary heart disease than others.
Few studies also pointed out the influence of different personality types to an-
ger coping responses and health (Greer & Watson, 1985; Anderson & Lawler,
1995). Women were asked to “recall a time when they become very angry“ in the
study of Anderson & Lawler (1995). Their responses were later coded into four
anger coping responses: suppression, cognition, assertion, and aggression. Heart
rate and blood pressure were monitored at the baseline and after the interview.
The relation of type-A and type-B personality to systolic blood pressure in anger
coping condition was investigated. Women using the suppressed mode of anger
coping showed higher systolic blood pressure. Women using the assertive mode
of anger coping had the lowest level of systolic blood pressure. Further, type-
A women using the suppressed mode of anger coping showed the highest sys-
tolic blood pressure. The lowest level of systolic blood pressure was found in
type-B women using the assertive mode of anger coping (Anderson & Lawler,
Special effects related to anger coping were observed in the individuals with
type-C personality (Greer & Watson, 1985). The typical behavioral pattern of “be-
ing pathologically nice“ is represented in the type-C individuals (Buck & Powers,
2005), because of their excessive and exaggerated levels of kindness expressed
towards their social environments. Type-C individuals deny their anger feelings
and expressions (Buck & Powers, 2005), and this pattern was associated with
cancer susceptibility and recurrence (Greer & Watson, 1985). Such repressed
coping strategy is an interesting phenomenon when seen from the functionalist
perspective. One of the most important functions of emotions is their signal func-
tion (Nakonečný, 2000). This signal function works on both the intrapersonal and
the interpersonal level (Thoits, 1989). The repression of anger in the mind would
strongly reduce the intrapersonal signal function of anger. However, on the other
hand, it is known from anxiety research that repressors avoid only medium threats.
When the level of threat is highly significant, they process the threat with the
similar allocation of attention as non-repressors (Calvo & Eysenck, 2000). Causes
of anger repression are not always clear. Repression might occur, for example, as
an outcome of evoked anxiety when negative consequences are assumed, includ-
ing social disapproval, which is especially threatening for repressors (Zeman &
Garber, 1996). However, possible influences of social regulatory pressures such as
specific social rules for expressing anger (display rules) and specific expectations
for anger experience (feeling rules) can be assumed as well.
Anger coping strategies have impact not only on physical health, but they can
also influence on the development of some mental problems, especially depression
and internalizing disorders. The suppressed mode of anger coping and stressful
life events were independent predictors of depression in the study of Clay, An-
derson, & Dixon (1993). Similarly, the inhibition of anger predicted internalizing
symptoms in children (Zeman, Shipman, & Suveg, 2002). Experiences of anger
and sadness represent two emotional states which are often associated with the
development of depression in children (Zahn-Waxler, Klimes-Dougan, & Slattery,
Alcohol abuse was reported as an one of the most anger-provoking elicitors
for women in the study of Buss (1989). Women reported greater anger than men
as a reaction to their partner’s alcohol abuse (Buss, 1989). One can see alcohol
abuse in two different roles in relation to anger experience and anger coping. First,
alcohol abuse could be a possible strategy of coping with anger for men, although
Goodwin (2006) considered drinking alcohol as a less productive coping behav-
ior. Second, alcohol abuse could be also one of the strongest anger-provoking
elicitors for women (Buss, 1989). Such gender differences would have further
implications on dyadic intimate relationships between males and females. We can
construct a hypothetical situation where the male partner wishes to cope with his
anger experience with alcohol consumption. This may elicit further anger feelings
in his female partner, who may also externalize her feelings in mutual interactions
and emotional communication. Previous research revealed that negative emotional
reactions of women represent generally one of the strongest anger-provoking elici-
tors for men (Kring, 2000). We can discuss a hypothetical “loop effect” in this
sense. The anger coping of one person creates anger experience in another. Such
interindividual emotional transfer of negative arousal seems to be quite specific
because of its self-enhancing effect. A similar effect at the intraindividual level
was described for happiness by Ryan & Deci (2001). Happiness is proposed to
cause positive cognitions, which in turn contribute to further happiness in the in-
Problems with excessively externalized anger seem to be possibly related with
the development of depression as a consequence of suppressed anger. Chronically
or problematically angry individuals are often unable to deal with stress (Lench,
2004). This inability leads to an increase of frustration and this frustration con-
sequently leads to increased anger (Grieger, 1986; Edmondson & Conger, 1996;
Cox, Stabb, & Bruckner, 1999). Such individuals might then perform, for exam-
ple, acts of domestic violence or child abuse (Lench, 2004).
As is apparent from the previous text, anger may often elicit conflicts in social
interactions. Thoits (1989) pointed out that emotional functions are key mecha-
nisms which form the social structure and the behavior of individuals. Negative
emotions, like anger, might harm group harmony and smooth social interactions
(Biehl et al., 1997). This could be the reason why people with chronic anger ten-
dencies maintain poorer social relationships (Monnier, Stone, Hobfoll, & Johnson,
1998). Suitable coping with anger emotional processing, and especially coping with
anger emotional expression, is therefore crucial for smooth social functioning.
Interestingly, previous research revealed some gender differences relating to the
interpersonal context of anger expression. Men experienced and expressed anger
generally more often than women (Plant, Hide, Keltner, & Devine, 2000; Plant,
Kling, & Smith, 2004). Further, men were also better in expressing anger via facial
expressions than women (Coats & Feldman, 1996). We may posit the question
about the causes of such differences. Although biologically based, anger is chiefly
a socially constructed emotion (Strongman, 2003). Anger is a conflictive emotion
that also has relations to the systems of aggression, social living, symbolization,
and self-awareness (Strongman, 2003). Based on these theoretical considerations,
one can construct two views of anger utility in daily social interactions for both
men and women. The first view assumes that the expression of anger toward one’s
social environment may have negative consequences for the individual. The sec-
ond view searches for the positive effects of overtly expressed anger. Anger might
negatively influence social interactions (Biehl et al., 1997). Women are gener-
ally highly motivated to maintain and refine their social relationships with others,
rather than to elicit conflict situations by overt anger expression (Madden, Barrett,
& Pietromonaco, 2000). From this point of view, one of possible explanations
might be that women’s competence not to express anger overtly is rooted in their
high pro-social motivation. They can perceive overt anger expression as “socially
harmful”, which might be a result of gender-specific socialization.
Can an overt expression of anger be also beneficial? Previous empirical evidence
showed that expression of anger elicits an attribution of dominance and power to
the individuals who expressed this anger (Marsch, Adams, & Kleck, 2005). Marsch
et al. (2005) stated that the expression of anger communicates the relative status in
social groups. From the functionalist perspective, one of the functions of anger is
to energize the person for defense (Strongman, 2003). Izard & Ackerman (2000)
pointed out that experience and expression of anger mobilize and sustain energy at
a high level, and that the increased motor activity sustained for a long time period
is typical for the emotion of anger. This readiness for action may also prevent the
aggressive behavior of another person (Izard & Ackerman, 2000).
Anger is expressed by specific facial expressions, intensive and fast speech, and
by very fast, expansive, and awkward movements (Wallbott & Scherer, 1986). It
seems that anger expression might be energetically very costly for the individual.
Our team conducted research where eight basic facial expressions of emotion were
compared according to their energetic costs (Trnka, 2007). Energetic costs were ana-
lyzed according to the range of structural facial changes, signal duration, duration
of communication sequence, and presence/strength of vocalization. Based on this
assessment, the expression of anger was considered as the second most energetically
expensive facial signal compared to other facial expressions (see Figure 6.2).
As seen above, the expression of anger is an energetically demanding behavior.
We can speculate about two hypothetical causes of the above-mentioned gender
differences from this perspective. First, it would be beneficial for women to save
energy by expressing anger to a lesser extent. The saved energy would be hypo-
thetically used for improving and maintaining their interindividual relationships
through pro-social communication or for child care. The second hypothesis takes
in mind the relation of anger to the status hierarchy. Men are more often targets of
the anger expression of others than women (Dosser, Balswick, & Halverson, 1983;
Harris, 1994; Brody, Lovas, & Hay, 1995). It seems that men are challenged to de-
fend their status more often than women. Frequency of anger expressions towards
friends increases generally with age during childhood (Underwood et al., 1992;
Underwood, 1997), as their social relationships become more complex and com-
Figure 6.2 Energetic costs of eight basic facial expressions. (Source: Trnka, 2007).
Cheap Medium Expensive
low cost high cost
smile disgust
plicated. It seems plausible that with the increasing complexity of social bonds,
status rivalry may cause gender-specific direction of overt anger expressions. Men
are hypothesized to be exposed to more conflict social interactions with others.
Higher frequency of overt anger expressions might then reflect either the more
pronounced status rivalry in men, or the generally higher occurrence of aggressive
interactions in men.
The previous text briefly summarized the current research of anger coping. We
proceeded step by step starting from the structure of anger coping and covering the
influence of anger coping on health and illness. Further, we explored area of im-
pact of anger coping on mental health, and finally we discussed the interpersonal
domain of anger coping including dyadic interactions.
Current research revealed several loop effects of previous expression or coping
of anger on the current anger experience. These effects emerged both on the in-
terpersonal level (Buss, 1989; Burman, Margolin, & John, 1993; Goodwin, 2006)
and intrapersonal level (Grieger, 1986; Edmondson & Conger, 1996; Cox, Stabb,
& Bruckner, 1999; Harburg et al., 2003). These effects prove to be not only im-
mediate, but they may cause reexperiencing anger after long time period (Harburg
et al., 2003). The well-known facial feedback hypothesis (e.g., Izard, 1991; Ek-
man, 1993; McIntosh, 1996; Blairy, Herrera, & Hess, 1999) posits that changes
in the nonverbal expression of the individual can elicit physiological changes, and
consequently also an emotional experience consistent with the expressed emotion.
However, researchers recently agree that such proprioreceptive feedback may elic-
it a similarly valenced experience (pleasant/unpleasant), but no specific emotional
experience such as disgust, anger, contempt, etc. (Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall,
1996; Andersen & Guerrero, 1998). On the contrary, the above mentioned “anger
self-enhancing loop effect” seems to be just specific. Anger experience and expres-
sion often elicit further anger experience or expression in another person or within
the same individual. Since anger has an immediate initial phase with a strong
experience and limited potential to manage it, further research should address the
following phases, where display rules start to work and self-strengthening effects
contrary cause repeated reexperiencing of anger, to a greater extent.
From the methodological point of view, anger coping strategies were assessed
by self-report measures in most cases (see “Structure of Anger Coping”). How-
ever, such measures are often criticized because of social desirability response
bias and other limitations (Bartz et al., 1996; Kring, 2000; Miers et al., 2007).
Measuring coping under real-life conditions is possible, especially in the domain
of the emotional expression of anger. Future research may be inspired by research
in human ethology (see, e.g., Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989) where observational meth-
ods are well-defined and standardized. However, the main limitation of such an
approach is the possible negative observer bias, when the observer is physically
present during data collecting and thus may interrupt natural expressions of anger.
Further methodological development should focus on the reducing of such nega-
tive observer bias to a permissible level.
Finally, we may conclude that some of the already-developed instruments have
not yet been sufficiently utilized for assessing gender differences in anger coping.
Using the Profile of Anger Coping Skills - PACS (Willner et al., 2005) and the
Anger Recall Interview – ARI (Anderson & Lawler, 1995) can bring new insights
into possible gender-specific coping mechanisms in future research.
Andersen, P. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (1998). Principles of communication and emotion in
social interaction. In P. Anderson & L. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication
and emotion: Research, theory, applications and context (pp. 49-96). San Diego: Aca-
demic Press.
Anderson, S. F., & Lawler, K. A. (1995). The anger recall interview and cardiovascular
reactivity in women: An examination of context and experience. Journal of Psychoso-
matic Research, 39, 335-343.
Bartz, A. E., Blume, N. E., & Rose, J. (1996). Gender differences in self-report measures
of anger: The role of social desirability and negative affect. Journal of Social Behavior
and Personality, 11, 241-253.
Biehl, M., Matsumoto, D., Ekman, P., Hearn, V., Heider, K., Kudoh, T., & Ton, V.
(1997). Matsumoto and Ekman’s Japanese and Caucasian Facial Expressions of Emo-
tions (JACFEE): Reliability data and cross-national differences. Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, 21, 3-21.
Blairy, S., Herrera, P., & Hess, U. (1999). Mimicry and the judgement of emotional facial
expressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23, 5-41.
Bongard, S., & al’Absi, M. (2003). Domain-specific anger expression assessment and
blood pressure during rest and acute stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 34,
Brody, L. R., Lovas, G. S., & Hay, D. H. (1995). Gender differences in anger and fear as a
function of situational context. Sex Roles, 32, 47-78.
Buck, R., & Powers, S. R. (2005). The expression, communication, and regulation of biological
emotions: Sex and cultural differences and similarities. Psychologia, 48, 335-353.
Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Woodall, W. G. (1996). Nonverbal communication: The
unspoken dialogue. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Burman, B., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1993). America’s angriest home videos: Beha-
vioral contingencies observed in home reenactments of marital conflict. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 28-39.
Burns, J. W., Evon, D., & Strain-Saloum, C. (1999). Repressed anger and patterns of car-
diovascular, self-report and behavioral responses: Effects of harassment. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 47, 569-581.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Conflict between the sexes: Strategic interference and the evocation of
anger and upset. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 735-747.
Calvo, M. G., & Eysenck, M. (2000). Early vigilance and late avoidance of threat process-
ing: Repressive coping versus low/high anxiety. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 763-787.
Clay, D. L., Anderson, W. P., & Dixon, W. A. (1993). Relationship between anger expres-
sion and stress in predicting depression. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 91-94.
Coats, E. J., & Feldman, R. S. (1996). Gender differences in nonverbal correlates of social
status. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1014-1022.
Cox, D. L., Stabb, S. D., & Bruckner, K. H. (1999). Women’s anger: Clinical and develop-
mental perspectives. Ann Arbor: Braun-Brumfield.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative depen-
dence. New York: Wiley.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R, Lynch, R. S., & Morris, C. D. (1996). The expression of
anger and its consequences. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 34, 575-590.
Dosser, D., Balswick, J., & Halverson, C. (1983). Situational context of emotional expres-
siveness. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 375-387.
Edmondson, C. B., & Conger, J. C. (1996). A review of treatment efficacy for individuals
with anger problems: Conceptual, assessment, and methodological issues. Clinical Psy-
chology Review, 16, 251-275.
Egloff, B. & Khrone, H. W. (1996). Repressive emotional directedness after failure. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1318-1326.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1989). Human ethology. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Ekman, P. (1993). Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist, 48, 384-392.
Fava, M., Anderson, K., & Rosenbaum, J. F. (1990). “Anger attacks”: Possible variants of
panic and major depressive disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 867-870.
Forgays, D. G., Forgays, D. K., & Spielberger, C. D. (1997). Factor structure of the State-
Trait Anger Expression Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 497-507.
Gallacher, J. E., Yarnell, J. W., Sweetnam, P. M., Elwood, P. C., & Stansfeld, S. A. (1999).
Anger and incident heart disease in the Caerphilly study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 61,
Girdler, S. S., Turner, J. R., Sherwood, A., & Light, K. C. (1990). Gender differences in
blood pressure control during a variety of behavioral stressors. Psychosomatic Medi-
cine, 52, 571-591.
Goodwin, R. D. (2006). Association between coping with anger and feelings of depression
among adults. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 664-669.
Greer, S., & Watson, M. (1985). Toward a psychobiological model of cancer: Psychologi-
cal considerations. Social Science Medicine, 20, 773-777.
Grieger, R. M. (1986). Anger problems. In A. Ellis & R. Grieger (Eds.), Handbook of
rational-emotive therapy (pp. 121-140). New York: Springer Publishing.
Harburg, E., Julius, M., Kaciroti, N., Gleiberman, L., & Schork, M. A. (2003). Expressive/
suppressive anger-coping responses, gender, and types of mortality: A 17-year follow-
up. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65, 588-597.
Harris, M. B. (1994). Gender of subject and target as mediators of aggression. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 24, 453-471.
Hogan, B. E., & Linden, W. (2004). Anger response styles and blood pressure: At least
don’t ruminate about it! Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 27, 38-49.
Hogan, B. E., & Linden, W. (2005). Curvilinear relationships of expressed anger and blood
pressure in women but not in men: Evidence from two samples. Journal of Psychoso-
matic Research, 59, 97-102.
Houston, B. K. (1994). Anger, hostility, and physiological reactivity. In A. Siegman & T.
Smith (Eds.), Anger, hostility, and the heart (pp. 97-116). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Izard, C. E. (1991). The psychology of emotions. New York: Plenum Press.
Izard, C. E., & Ackerman, B. P. (2000). Motivational, organizational, and regulatory func-
tions of discrete emotions. In M. Lewis & J. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emo-
tions (pp. 253-264). New York: Guilford Press.
Jorgensen R. S., Gelling, P. D., & Kliner, L. (1992). Patterns of social desirability and an-
ger in young men with a parental history of hypertension: Association with cardiovas-
cular activity. Health Psychology, 11, 403-412.
Keltner, D. & Kring, A. M. (1998). Emotion, social function, and psychopathology. Review
of General Psychology, 2, 320-342.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Greenberg, B. (1983). On the use of physiological measures in as-
sertion research. Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 5, 97-109.
Kopper, B. A., & Epperson, D. L. (1991). Women and anger: sex and sex-role comparison
in the expression of anger. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 7-14.
Kring, A. M. (2000). Gender and anger. In A. Fisher (Ed.), Gender and emotion: Social
Psychological Perspectives (pp. 211-231). Paris: Cambridge University Press.
Lench, H. C. (2004). Anger management: Diagnostic differences and treatment implica-
tions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 512-531.
Linden, W., Hogan, B. E., Rutledge, T., Chawla, A., Lenz, J. W., & Leung, D. (2003). There
is more to anger coping than “in” or “out”. Emotion, 3, 12-29.
Madden, T. E., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (2000). Sex differences in anxiety and
depression: Empirical evidence and methodological questions. In A. Fisher (Ed.), Gen-
der and emotion: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 277-298). Paris: Cambridge
University Press.
Marsh, A. A., Adams, R. B., & Kleck, R. E. (2005). Why do fear and anger look the way
they do? Form and social function in facial expressions. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 31, 73-86.
Martin, R. C., & Dahlen, E. R. (2005). Cognitive emotion regulation in the prediction of depres-
sion, anxiety, stress, and anger. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1249-1260.
Matsumoto, D. (1990). Cultural similarities and differences in display rules. Motivation and
Emotion, 14, 195-214.
McIntosh, D. N. (1996). Facial feedback hypotheses: Evidence, implications, and direc-
tions. Motivation and Emotion, 20, 121-147.
Miers, A. C., Rieffe, C., Terwogt, M. M., Cowan, R., & Linden, W. (2007). The relation
between anger coping strategies, anger mood and somatic complaints in children and
adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 653-664.
Miller, S. B. (1993). Cardiovascular reactivity in anger-defensive individuals: The influ-
ence of task demands. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55, 78-85.
Monnier, J., Stone, B. K., Hobfoll, S. E., & Johnson, R. J. (1998). How antisocial and
prosocial coping influence the support process among men and women in the U.S. post
al service. Sex Roles, 39, 1-20.
Musante, L., & Treiber, F. A. (2000). The relationship between anger-coping styles and
lifestyle behaviors in teenagers. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 63-68.
Nakonečný, M. (2000). Lidské emoce. Praha: Academia.
Pauls, C., & Stemmler, G. (2003). Repressive and defensive coping during fear and anger.
Emotion, 3, 284-302.
Plant, E. A., Hyde, J. S., Keltner, D., & Devine, P. G. (2000). The gender stereotyping of
emotions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 81-92.
Plant, E. A., Kling, K. C., & Smith, G. L. (2004). The influence of gender and social role
on the interpretation of facial expressions. Sex Roles, 51, 187-196.
Porter, L. C., Stone, A. A., & Schwartz, J. E. (1999). Anger expression and ambulatory
blood pressure: a comparison of state and trait measures. Psychosomatic Medicine, 61,
Pérez-Nieto, M. A., Camunas, N., Cano-Vindel, A., Miguel-Tobal, J. J., & Iruarrizaga, I.
(2000). Anger and anger coping: A study of attributional styles. Studia Psychologica,
42, 289-302.
Ronan, G. F., Dreer, L. E., Dollard, K. M., & Ronan, D. W. (2004). Violent couples: Coping
and communication skills. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 131-137.
Ronan, G. F., Keeney, J., Date, A., & Ronan, D. (1996). Content specificity of communi-
cation skill deficit in maritally violent couples. 30th annual meeting of the Association
for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy. New York: Association for the Advance-
ment of Behavior Therapy.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of re-search on
hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 52, 141-166.
Spielberger, C. D. (1988). State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory: Professional manual.
Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Spielberger, C. D., Johnson, E. H., & Russell, S. F. (1985). The experience and expres-
sion of anger: Construction and validation of an anger expression scale. In M. Chesney
& R. Rosenman (Eds.), Anger and hostility in cardiovascular and behavioral disorders
(pp. 5-30). New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Strongman, K. T. (2003). The psychology of emotion: From everyday life to theory. Chich-
ester: Wiley.
Stuchlíková, I., & Man, F. (2002). Do repressors have biased self-report of anger expres-
sions? 23rd Stress and Anxiety Research Society Conference. Melbourne, Deakin Uni-
Stuchlíková, I., & Man, F. (2003). Anger and anger expression. In I. Čermák, M. Hřebíčková,
& P. Macek (Eds.), Aggression, identity, personality (pp. 134-157). Brno: Czech Aca-
demy of Science.
Suarez, E. C., Kuhn, C. M., Schanberg, S. M., Williams, R. M., & Zimmerman, E. A.
(1998). Neuroendocrine, cardiovascular, and emotional responses of hostile men: The
role of interpersonal challenge. Psychosomatic Medicine, 60, 78-88.
Taylor, S. (1970). Aggressive behavior as a function of approval motivation and physical
attack. Psychonomic Science, 18, 195-196.
Thoits, P. A. (1989). The sociology of emotion. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 317-342.
Trnka, R. (2007). Behavioral ecology of facial signals: Cost analysis, energetical demands
of signals and economics of social interactions. Czech Anthropology, 57, 75-79.
Underwood, M. K. (1997). Peer social status and children’s understanding of the expres-
sion and control of positive and negative emotions. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43, 610-
Underwood, M. K., Coie, J. D., & Herbsman, C. R. (1992). Display rules for anger and ag-
gression in school-age children. Child Development, 63, 366-380.
Wallbott, H. G., & Scherer, K. R. (1986). Cues and channels in emotion recognition. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 690-699.
Willner, P., Brace, N., & Phillips, J. (2005). Assessment of anger coping skills in individu-
als with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49, 329-
Zahn-Waxler, C., Klimes-Dougan, B., & Slattery, M. J. (2000). Internalizing problems of
childhood and adolescence: Prospects, pitfalls, and progress in understanding the deve-
lopment of anxiety and depression. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 443-466.
Zeman, J., & Garber, J. (1996). Display rules for anger, sadness, and pain: It depends on
who is watching. Child Development, 67, 957-973.
Zeman, J., Shipman, K., & Penza-Clyve, S. (2001). Development and initial validation of
the Children’s Sadness Management Scale. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 25, 187-
Zeman, J., Shipman, K., & Suveg, C. (2002). Anger and sadness regulation: Predictions to
internalizing and externalizing symptoms in children. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 31, 393-398.
... Patients learn to decide for themselves when to step out of the anger-triggering situation and cross the rope to calm down in this other part of the room. This is important because if tension remains high, it can lead to an 'anger self-enhancing loop effect' on the intrapersonal as well as the interpersonal level, immediately or after a longer period (Trnka & Stuchlíková, 2011). Sharing experiences, breathing exercises, relaxation and distraction techniques help to limit these self-strengthening effects. ...
... From the functionalist perspective, one of the functions of anger is to energise a person for defence. The readiness for action may also prevent aggressive counterreaction by another person (Trnka & Stuchlíková, 2011). ...
... In the end, patients move from coping with anger, that is, dealing with negative aspects in a non-eating disordered way, towards anger as coping, that is, using the positive meaning of anger as a resource for prosocial aggression, which is in itself an effective coping strategy in stressful situations. Current research into anger coping has shifted from simple descriptions of mechanisms within the individual towards dynamic explanations within the interpersonal context (Trnka & Stuchlíková, 2011). This development is consistent with the relational approach to aggression regulation presented in this paper. ...
Full-text available
Eating disorder behaviours can be seen as self-destructive behaviours to a great extent related to inhibited anger expression. However, a treatment protocol targeted at anger and aggression in these disorders is lacking. This paper describes a psychomotor therapy (PMT) model as a body-oriented method to help patients with eating disorders to cope with anger and aggression. They learn to see aggression as a positive, relational, body-felt experience, and to control anger expression at the right time with appropriate intensity. Our clinical experience indicates that PMT can accelerate the overall treatment process by triggering hidden feelings and thoughts and by developing expression skills. This article discusses PMT principles of aggression regulation and the methodological procedures of the intervention. Randomised controlled research is needed to validate clinical experiences.
... The second scale presented by A. Ferreira et al. (2013) it called the energy scale, created by Trnka and Stuchlíková (2011). Such as may be seen in Figure 4, the authors created three intensities, corresponding to Little, Medium and Very, where emotions are organized in order, from those that need less energy to those that need more energy to manifest. ...
... Finally, it is worth noting that the recognition of emotional facial expressions is directly related to non-verbal social behavior and the adaptation of human beings to Figure 4 The Energy Scale illustrates and organizes the emotions facials on a scale of Low, Medium and High, highlighting which of them are they emotions most need energy to manifest, as well as those that need it least (A. Ferreira et al., 2013;Trnka & Stuchlíková, 2011). different contexts (Nozima, Demos, & Souza, 2018). ...
Full-text available
Purpose: Data provided by the World Health Organization indicate that the number of people aged 60 years or more in the world population is gradually increasing. Moreover, projections clarify that in 2030 there will be 1.4 billion elderly people and 2.1 billion in 2050. Along with the natural aging process of any human being, changes in perception and cognition can cause damage that contributes to elderly people having difficulties both to recognize and to express emotions through the face. Few researches in the literature address the recognition of emotions in elderly, whether they are affected by dementia processes or not. In consequence of this, few databases are made available for carrying out work and experiments. Not being able to express and recognize emotions through the face can contribute to the elderly having difficulties in communicating important messages, which may even compromise their physical integrity. Methods: Therefore, this work aims to develop an application for Emotion Recognition in the elderly through Facial Expressions. For this, we first used Haar cascade Frontal Face for face detection and implemented a Convolutional Neural Network to classify emotions, using FER2013 database for training, validation and testing. In a second part of the methodology, in order to assess the performance of the algorithm in this context, we applied the developed model to recognize emotions in static images of elderly people. Results: As a result, the accuracy achieved by the developed model was 0.6375. From the images tested, for 52.63% of them the model was able to detect the face and identify some emotion. On the other hand, in 47.37% of the images, the model had difficulty both in detecting the face and in identifying emotions. Conclusion: Finally, the findings and discussions exposed in this work are promising, we also found and shared limitations and related them to our goals for future works. The possibility of developing intelligent systems that support emotion recognition in elderly population emerges as a valuable tool, representing an alternative to promote not only quality of life for the elderly themselves, but also for the entire support network around them.
... Breaking the display rules often causes negative social feedback or the social punishment of the individual. Strong anger expressions are repressed in most human cultures, as oftentimes they may elicit conflict or even serious physical combat (Trnka and Stuchlikova, 2013). Females are generally more prone to avoid face-to-face confrontation and they rather use indirect forms of aggression (Björkqvist, 1994; Hess and Hagen, 2006). ...
Full-text available
Recent research has consistently found that women experience anger as frequently and as intensely as men, but men are more likely to express anger. Upon closer inspection, expressions of anger are also targeted more frequently towards men than towards women. Why? There are four possible explanations, a) women are more interpersonally sensitive and more socio-emotionally oriented than men, b) women are more sensitive to negative social feedback than men; c) women are less exposed to aggressive signals in order to maintain a better somatic and psychological health for potential courtship and for successful mating; d) the more frequent targeting of anger towards men developed because of the frequent conflicts of males within the dominance hierarchy during hominid evolution.
Full-text available
In focusing on gender differences in anger expression, Trnka (2013) provides a useful complement to the article by Ingram et al., (2012) analyzing gender differences in children's narratives about peer conflict. I agree that gender differences in anger are more likely to be the result of differential socialization processes regarding the expression of anger than by innate differences in the experience of anger. Gender differences in intersexual anger and aggression are likely to be affected by the social context, and especially whether a female is interacting with a romantic partner or an unknown male. The implication of socialization in anger expression raises the possibility that culture plays a causal role in encouraging cooperative breeding by inhibiting inter-female aggressive displays. Another of Trnka's proposals, that the expression of anger contributes to reconciliation and inhibits long-term relationship damage, is intuitively plausible and supported by the research literature, but not by data from the current study.
Full-text available
While many women receive equal education, such equality is nowhere in sight when it comes to women’s and men’s career success: men still earn significantly more than women and are more likely to be promoted. In this book, the authors offer a state of the art review of applied social-psychological research on gender at work, shedding light on all the different ways that work-related perceptions, attributions, outcomes, and the like differ for women and men. Focusing on domains (e.g., engineering) and positions (e.g., leadership) that are marked by women’s underrepresentation, the first part of the book looks at gender at work in terms of stereotypes, attitudes, and social roles, including parenthood, while the second part takes a social identity and communication perspective, exploring the situations in which men and women interact at work. Many chapters focus on applied questions, such as career choice, effects of role models, and sexual harassment at work. Theories and findings are applied to these topics, with conclusions and recommendations drawn throughout the book.
This study was designed to (1) investigate gender differences in self-report measures of the experience, expression, and control of anger, and (2) assess the role of social desirability and negative affect in the gender-anger relationship. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses showed gender accounting for less than one percent of the variance. Both social desirability and negative affect contributed unique variance in predicting five of the seven anger measures of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (Spielberger, 1988). The exceptions were Anger-Out, where social desirability alone contributed, and State-Anger, where negative affect alone contributed. The relationship of negative affect and social desirability to anger expression is examined and implications for further research and practice are discussed.
This study investigated the relationship of sex and sex-role identity with the expression of anger. In particular, a number of common assertions about women's experience and expression of anger were examined empirically. Female (242) and male (213) college students completed several questionnaires assessing sex-role identity and multiple dimensions of the subjective experience and expression of anger. Univariate analyses revealed consistent relationships between sex-role identity and anger proneness, outward expression of anger, modulation or control of anger expression, and suppression of anger. Significant sex differences were not observed. Viewed unidimensionally, sex did not appear to be the determining factor in anger expression or the tendency to suppress anger.