The authors argued that emotions characterized by certainty appraisals promote heuristic processing, whereas emotions characterized by uncertainty appraisals result in systematic processing. The 1st experiment demonstrated that the certainty associated with an emotion affects the certainty experienced in subsequent situations. The next 3 experiments investigated effects on processing of emotions associated with certainty and uncertainty. Compared with emotions associated with uncertainty, emotions associated with certainty resulted in greater reliance on the expertise of a source of a persuasive message in Experiment 2, more stereotyping in Experiment 3, and less attention to argument quality in Experiment 4. In contrast to previous theories linking valence and processing, these findings suggest that the certainty appraisal content of emotions is also important in determining whether people engage in systematic or heuristic processing. An extensive and growing body of research has examined the effects of emotions, moods, and affect on judgment and information processing (for reviews,

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.

This paper reviews the impact of anger on judgment and decision making. Section I proposes that anger merits special attention in the study of judgment and decision making because the effects of anger often diverge from those of other negative emotions. Section II presents an Appraisal-Tendency Framework for predicting and organizing such effects. Section III reviews empirical evidence for the uniqueness of anger's relations to judgment and decision making. Section IV connects the Appraisal-Tendency Framework to associated mechanisms and theories. Drawing on the evidence, Section V presents the question of whether anger should be considered a positive emotion. It also proposes the hypothesis that anger will be experienced as relatively unpleasant and unrewarding when reflecting back on the source of one's anger but experienced as relatively pleasant and rewarding when looking forward. Section VI synthesizes the evidence into a new portrait of the angry decision maker. Anger merits such attention for several reasons. First, anger is one of the most frequently experienced emotions-at least among individuals in the United States. Averill (1982) concluded in a survey of prior studies that ''Depending upon how records are kept, most people report becoming mildly to moderately angry anywhere from several times a day to several times a week'' (p. 1146).1 Similarly, Lerner, Gonzalez, Small, and Fischhoff (2003) found, in a nationally representative sample of US citizens, that out of all the possible emotions experienced by US citizens, anger was the most commonly experienced emotion in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Fischhoff, Gonzalez, Lerner, and Small (2005) found that the same pattern held a year later with the same sample. To be sure, the diverse elicitors of anger experiences have been widely studied. Here, by contrast, we study the outcomes of anger-specifically judgment and decision-making outcomes. Admittedly, this is a unique approach. The most frequently studied outcome of anger is aggression (e.g., Berkowitz, 1990Berkowitz, , 1993, but here we are concerned with how anger influences perceptions, beliefs, ideas, reasoning, and ultimately choices. Anger has the potential to grip a nation over a sustained period (Fischhoff et al., 2005;Lerner et al., 2003) and thus it is important to understand how it may shape individual choice over time.A second reason for focusing on anger is that it has an unusually strong ability to capture attention. All emotional stimuli grab attention more so than do neutral stimuli (Derryberry & Tucker, 1994;Pratto & John, 1991). But anger has uniquely captivating properties both for the person experiencing it as well as for the person perceiving it (Solomon, 1990;Tavris, 1989). Hansen and Hansen (1988) have demonstrated what they call ''The Anger Superiority Effect''-a tendency for people to pay particular attention to angry faces. Angry faces are spotted quickly and mistakes are rarely made regarding them, as compared with other emotion expressions. And o...

Two studies examine complementarity (vs. mimicry) of dominant and submissive nonverbal behaviors. In the first study, participants interacted with a confederate who displayed either dominance (through postural expansion) or submission (through postural constriction). On average, participants exposed to a dominant confederate decreased their postural stance, whereas participants exposed to a submissive confederate increased their stance. Further, participants with complementing responses (dominance in response to submission and submission in response to dominance) liked their partner more and were more comfortable than those who mimicked. In the second study, complementarity and mimicry were manipulated, and complementarity resulted in more liking and comfort than mimicry. The findings speak to the likelihood of hierarchical differentiation.

No abstract