Anger and advancement versus sadness and subjugation: The effects of negative emotion expressions on social status conferral.

Four studies examined status conferral (decisions about who should be granted status). The studies show that people confer more status to targets who express anger than to targets who express sadness. In the 1st study, participants supported President Clinton more when they viewed him expressing anger about the Monica Lewinsky scandal than when they saw him expressing sadness about the scandal. This effect was replicated with an unknown politician in Study 2. The 3rd study showed that status conferral in a company was correlated with peers' ratings of the workers' anger. In the final study, participants assigned a higher status position and a higher salary to a job candidate who described himself as angry as opposed to sad. Furthermore, Studies 2-4 showed that anger expressions created the impression that the expresser was competent and that these perceptions mediated the relationship between emotional expressions and status conferral. Every real leader knew that the occasional outburst of unexplained anger was good... -Tom Wolfe, A Man in Ful

Sentimental Stereotypes: Emotional Expectations for High-and Low-Status Group Members

Three vignette studies examined stereotypes of the emotions associated with high- and low-status group members. In Study 1a, participants believed that in negative situations, high-status people feel more angry than sad or guilty and that low-status people feel more sad and guilty than angry. Study 1b showed that in response to positive outcomes, high-status people are expected to feel more pride and low-status people are expected to feel more appreciation. Study 2 showed that people also infer status from emotions: Angry and proud people are thought of as high status, whereas sad, guilty, and appreciative people are considered low status. The authors argue that these emotion stereotypes are due to differences in the inferred abilities of people in high and low positions. These perceptions lead to expectations about agency appraisals and emotions related to agency appraisals. In Study 3, the authors found support for this process by manipulating perceptions of skill and finding the same differences in emotion expectations

Sentimental Stereotypes: Emotional Expectations for High-and Low-Status Group Members

Three vignette studies examined stereotypes of the emotions associated with high- and low-status group members. In Study 1a, participants believed that in negative situations, high-status people feel more angry than sad or guilty and that low-status people feel more sad and guilty than angry. Study 1b showed that in response to positive outcomes, high-status people are expected to feel more pride and low-status people are expected to feel more appreciation. Study 2 showed that people also infer status from emotions: Angry and proud people are thought of as high status, whereas sad, guilty, and appreciative people are considered low status. The authors argue that these emotion stereotypes are due to differences in the inferred abilities of people in high and low positions. These perceptions lead to expectations about agency appraisals and emotions related to agency appraisals. In Study 3, the authors found support for this process by manipulating perceptions of skill and finding the same differences in emotion expectations

Feeling low and feeling high: Associations between social status and emotions.

Appraisal theories of emotion suggest that people's interpretations of situations are related to specific emotions. Cross-cultural theorists have argued that people's social roles can influence their interpretations. Thus, social roles and emotions are likely related. This dissertation examined multiple and reciprocal relationships between social status roles, agency appraisals, and specific emotions. Seven studies indicated that the experience of emotions is influenced by social position, that there are expectations for low and high status group members about the degree to which they should experience certain emotions, and that certain emotions convey social status. In Study 1, participants reported feeling specific emotions to a different degree depending on their randomly assigned status in a lab-created hierarchy. In Study 2, participants indicated that they experienced certain emotions to a different degree depending on whether they were interacting with their bosses or subordinates at work. In both studies, people in high status positions felt more anger and pride, while people in low status positions felt more sadness, guilt, and appreciation. Study 3, a vignette study, showed that people also expect high status group members to feel anger and pride and low status people to feel sadness, guilt, and appreciation. Again using a vignette methodology, Study 4 suggested that these status-emotion patterns are due, in part, to the stereotypes about the relative skill and ability of low and high status group members. Study 5 also used vignettes and indicated that people infer a person's social status from their emotions. Study 6 used people's real emotional reports to demonstrate the same phenomenon. Both Studies 5 and 6 demonstrated that angry and proud people are considered high status, and sad, guilty, and appreciative people are considered low status. In Study 7, participants were presented with information about another person's status and emotional state. Participants believed that people with high status emotions are more competent and dominant than people with low status emotions, regardless of their formal status position.Ph.D.PsychologySocial psychologyUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/131340/2/9840660.pd

Anger and Advancement versus Sadness and Subjugation: The Effect of Negative Emotion Expressions on Social Status Conferral

Four studies examine status conferral (decisions about to whom positions of status and power should be given). All of the studies show that people confer more status to targets who express anger than to targets who express sadness. In the first study, participants watched a video of President Clinton expressing either anger or sadness when talking about the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Those who say the anger clip were more likely to believe that Clinton should remain president than those who saw the sad clip. In the second study, participants said they were more likely to vote for an unknown political candidate when they saw him deliver a speech about terrorism in an angry way than when they saw the same speech delivered in a sad way. The third study showed that a manager's ratings of how likely people in his department were to be promoted were positively correlated with co-works' ratings of the degree to which these workers expressed anger at work. In the final study, participants who viewed a job candidate describing himself as having felt angry about a negative event from his previous job assigned him a higher status position and a higher salary than when the job candidate said he felt sad about the event. Further, Studies 2,3,and 4 showed that anger expressions created impressions that the expressor was competent, and, these perceptions of competence mediated the relationship between emotion expression and status conferral.