Anger regulation in interpersonal contexts: Anger experience,aggressive behavior,and cardiovascular reactivity

Abstract

The ability to regulate anger facilitates harmonious interactions with strangers, colleagues, friends, and romantic partners. We review the influence of four emotion regulation strategies (i.e., cognitive reappraisal, suppression, angry rumination, and mindfulness) on subjective anger experience, cardiovascular reactivity, and aggressive behavior. All studies included a real or implied social interaction (e.g., with a fictitious participant). We included research on individual differences in emotion regulation as well as experiments that manipulated emotion regulation strategies. The evidence suggests that cognitive reappraisal and mindfulness can buffer anger-related responses in interpersonal contexts. Angry rumination perpetuates anger and aggression. The effects of suppression are mixed. Our review highlights the need for additional research into the extent to which emotion regulation strategies influence provoked anger and aggression in different interpersonal contexts.

Keywords

Aggression anger cardiovascular reactivity cognitive reappraisal emotion regulation mindfulness rumination suppression

Angry people can be intimidating and interpersonally challenging. Their frequent and often unrestrained anger has a host of detrimental effects on relationships with family, friends, romantic partners, colleagues, and strangers (Baron et al., 2007; Hershcovis et al., 2007; Kuppens, 2005). Frequent, unregulated anger can lead to verbal and physical altercations, intimate partner violence, and early mortality from cardiovascular disease (Chida & Steptoe, 2009; Norlander & Eckhardt, 2005; Novaco, 2011).

Although some individuals are chronically angry, the emotion of anger is a universal feature of the human experience. The automaticity of anger arousal and its presence in nonhuman animals reflects its evolved nature and survival function (Darwin, 1872; Gilam & Hendler, 2016; Novaco, 2016). Interpersonal provocation is considered the most common cause of anger and reactive aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Novaco, 2016). Provocations are events that are interpreted as causing deliberate harm to oneself or important others, such as unfair treatment or deliberate goal thwarting (Novaco, 2016). Strong cardiovascular arousal is a core component of anger (Stemmler, 2010) and occurs quickly following provocation (Williams, 2017).

Anger regulation strategies comprise conscious or automatic processes that modulate the experience and expression of anger (Gilam & Hendler, 2016), thus offering a promising point of intervention in interpersonal relationships. Regulation strategies may reduce, intensify, or maintain anger when interacting with another person, depending on one’s situational goals (Gross, 2015). Effective anger regulation is associated with improved quality of life and social interactions (Phillips, Henry, Hosie, & Milne, 2006).

The current review

Following recent advances in anger regulation research, the current review focuses on four strategies that affect anger and aggression in interpersonal relationships: cognitive reappraisal, suppression, rumination, and mindfulness. Although there is a relatively large body of research on intrapersonal anger regulation (e.g., using autobiographical recall), fewer studies have examined anger regulation during interpersonal interactions. Even fewer studies have directly compared anger regulation strategies in the context of interpersonal relationships. Those studies that have compared strategies typically used another anger regulation strategy as a comparison group rather than an active or passive control (e.g., Fabiansson & Denson, 2012; Germain & Kangas, 2015). The limited research available, and the nature of control groups and study design, make it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the relative efficacy of different anger regulation strategies. As such, we will focus on examining each strategy separately; but we do make comparisons when sufficient evidence is available.

We first define each of the four anger regulation strategies and their underlying process mechanisms. Second, we evaluate the evidence of their effects on (1) subjective anger and cardiovascular responses and (2) aggressive responses. We chose these outcome variables because together they comprise anger and its most studied sequelae (e.g., Brosschot & Thayer, 1998; Herrero, Gadea, Rodríguez-Alarcón, Espert, & Salvador, 2010; Novaco, 2016).

Our empirical focus is primarily on laboratory-based studies because they provide a high degree of control over extraneous variables, through standardization of the provocation and random assignment. Participants are typically insulted by another participant who, unbeknownst to them, is a confederate acting according to a script. In experimental paradigms that manipulate regulation strategies, participants are then instructed to use a prespecified anger regulation strategy in response to such a provocation. We also included studies that examined trait level or spontaneous emotion regulation. Researchers typically measure the degree to which individuals endorse specific trait emotion regulation strategies or retrospectively ask what type of strategies they spontaneously used to deal with anger during the study. Including both approaches provides a more complete account of how anger regulation might function in interpersonal contexts.

Regulation strategies

Cognitive reappraisal

Cognitive reappraisal is perhaps the most studied emotion regulation strategy (Gilam & Hendler, 2016). In the context of anger provocation, reappraisal involves lessening or preventing an anger response by changing how the provocation is interpreted. These results are often achieved by thinking about the provocation from an objective, distanced, and less emotional perspective (Gross, 2015).

The process model of emotion regulation (Gross, 2015) suggests that cognitive reappraisal reduces anger by modifying the entire temporal course of an emotional response. If reappraisal occurs early enough during a provoking interpersonal encounter, it requires less effort to reduce the anger experience (e.g., Sheppes & Gross, 2011). Different psychological and cognitive changes support this modification of the anger experience. For example, some research suggests that cognitive reappraisal increases attention to alternative information (Adam, Schönfelder, Forneck, & Wessa, 2014). Other research suggests that higher-order processes such as working memory play a key role (Gan, Zhang, Yang, Yang, & Chen, 2017; Pe, Raes, & Kuppens, 2013). In terms of provoked anger, individuals with high compared to low working memory might be better able to hold alternative explanations for the provocation in mind, thus allowing them to reappraise an initially angry interpretation in a neutral or unemotional manner.

Considerable evidence also shows that different neural regions are implicated in cognitive reappraisal. These regions include the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and the dorsomedial, dorsolateral, and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) (Buhle et al., 2014). Cognitive reappraisal seems to involve interactions between prefrontal and cingulate regions implicated in cognitive control and subcortical systems involved in emotional responding (i.e., amygdala and insula) (Wager, Davidson, Hughes, Lindquist, & Ochsner, 2008). The interplay between these neural regions suggests that top-down prefrontal control over angry desires might be involved in reappraising provoking events.

Suppression

Suppression involves concealing the overt expression of anger, such as facial or verbal expressions, and/or effortful attempts to downregulate the internal experience of anger (Dunn, Billotti, Murphy, & Dalgleish, 2009; Germain & Kangas, 2015). According to the process model, and in contrast to reappraisal, expressive suppression occurs after anger has already been experienced (Gross, 2002). Most research suggests that suppression decreases behavioral expression of emotions as well as impairs memory of emotional events (Binder et al., 2012; Dillon, Ritchey, Johnson, & LaBar, 2007; Gross, 2002; Richards & Gross, 2000). Despite these effects on behavior and memory, suppression often fails to decrease the subjective emotional experience itself (Gross, 2002).

Continuing to experience emotions despite using suppression might be explained, in part, by the neural regions implicated in this regulation strategy. Suppression recruits the right ventrolateral PFC (i.e., vlPFC), which is implicated in inhibitory control (Vanderhasselt, Kühn, & De Raedt, 2012). Additional fMRI studies have shown that suppression correlates with greater insula, PFC, and amygdala activation (Cutuli, 2014). In the context of provoked anger, the insula likely affects both the experience and suppression of anger (Gilam & Hendler, 2016). Following provocation, the insula may be involved in monitoring internal sensations of anger as well as the bodily awareness and expression of anger. The insula may subsequently engage networks involved in suppression of anger such as the vlPFC.

Angry rumination

Angry rumination is perseverative thinking about a personally meaningful anger-inducing event (Denson, 2013). This type of rumination entails replaying past anger-inducing situations and feelings as well as imagining revenge (e.g., Caprara, 1986; Denson, 2013). According to the multiple systems model, angry rumination increases or maintains anger and cardiovascular activation (Denson, 2013). This model, supported by behavioral and neuroimaging evidence, specifies brain regions implicated in emotion regulation, mentalizing, arousal, and self-referential processing as potential mechanisms underlying these effects (Denson, Pedersen, Ronquillo, & Nandy, 2009). Furthermore, angry rumination is thought to increase anger and risk for aggression because it can reduce self-control and executive functioning (Denson, Pedersen Friese, Hahm, & Roberts, 2011; Ding, Yang, Qian, & Gordon-Hollingsworth, 2015; White & Turner, 2014). With reduced self-control and impaired executive functions, rumination makes it more difficult to reduce anger and control aggressive behavior.

Mindfulness

Mindfulness refers to the psychological process of paying purposeful, nonjudgmental attention to thoughts, feelings and physical sensations in the present moment (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). Although not exclusively considered an emotion regulation strategy, there is evidence that mindfulness facilitates emotion regulation (e.g., Arch & Craske, 2006; Hill & Updegraff, 2012; Lutz et al., 2014).

One key component of mindfulness is nonreactance to internal and external stimuli (Baer et al., 2008). Mindfulness may facilitate emotion regulation through exposure and extinction mechanisms (e.g., Hölzel et al., 2011). By sitting with unpleasant experiences, instead of reacting to or avoiding them, individuals learn that negative emotional experiences are transient. Moreover, mindfulness meditation can decrease physiological arousal to anger inductions (Fennell, Benau, & Atchley, 2016) and is related to autonomic regulation (e.g., heart rate and respiratory amplitude) (Tang et al., 2009). Thus, a reduction in physiological reactivity to negative emotions could be a potential mechanism through which mindfulness regulates negative emotional experiences like anger. Studies have also shown mindfulness-related changes in brain regions associated with emotion experience, emotion regulation, and self-referential processing (Marchand, 2014).

Subjective and cardiovascular anger responses

Subjective anger is typically measured by asking participants to rate how angry they feel on a numeric scale following provocation. Cardiovascular measures are comparatively more diverse across studies. In the experimental studies included in the current review, cardiovascular measures included diastolic and systolic blood pressure, cardiac output, ventricular contractility, peripheral resistance, heart rate, heart rate variability (HRV) and cardiac sympathovagal tone. Measures were typically obtained while participants engaged in anger regulation strategies, which might have occurred during or following provocation. See Table 1 for a summary of definitions and how patterns of responding are typically interpreted in terms of anger regulation.

Table 1.

Summary of dependent variables in laboratory studies.

Dependent variable	Measurement/operationalization	Interpretation
Subjective anger	Self-report questionnaires or scales	Higher rating indicates greater experience of anger
Aggressive behavior	Behavioral responses to provocation, for example, using the hot sauce or Taylor Aggression Paradigm (noise-blasts or shocks)	Greater allocation of hot sauce, a noise-blast/shock with greater intensity/duration, or blocking the provocateurs goals indicates greater aggression
Cardiovascular responses	Blood pressure (pressure of blood in the circulatory system) Cardiac output (liters of blood ejected from the left ventricle per minute) Ventricular contractility (the force and shortening of the ventricle that determines ventricular ejection) and peripheral resistance (resistance of arteries to blood flow) Heart rate (number of contractions per minute) HRV (the interval between each heartbeat during normal sinus rhythm) Cardiac sympathovagal tone (the contribution of sympathetic arousal to the ratio of activation in autonomic nervous system)	Lower blood pressure indicates lower cardiovascular responses to anger (PNS activation) Lower cardiac output indicates lower cardiovascular responses to anger (PNS activation) Higher ventricular contractibility and lower peripheral resistance indicates greater challenge response (SNS activation); higher ventricular contractility with no change or slight increases in peripheral resistance indicates greater threat response (PNS activation) Increased heart rate indicates higher cardiovascular responses to anger (SNS activation) Increased HRV indicates lower cardiovascular responses to anger (PNS activation) Decreased cardiac sympathovagal tone indicates lower cardiovascular response to anger (smaller ratio of SNS activation relative to PNS)

Note. HRV = heart rate variability; PNS = parasympathetic nervous system; SNS = sympathetic nervous system.

Cognitive reappraisal and suppression

In a sample of 111 undergraduate women, Mauss, Cook, Cheng, and Gross (2007) examined the association between trait reappraisal, anger, and cardiovascular activity following provocation. The experimenter provoked participants by accusing them of noncompliance with instructions and intentional poor performance. Participants high in trait reappraisal reported less anger, and demonstrated increased cardiac output, increased ventricular contractility, and lower total peripheral resistance compared to those low in trait appraisal. This pattern of cardiovascular responding among participants high in trait reappraisal is characterized as a challenge response that is incompatible with an opposing threat response (Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, & Salomon, 1999). In a similar study using a sample of 50 undergraduate women, high trait reappraisal was associated with lower anger and blood pressure reactivity following provocation (i.e., receiving insulting feedback from a bogus participant about a speech) (Memedovic, Grisham, Denson, & Moulds, 2010). Trait suppression, however, did not have an effect on anger reactivity. These findings suggest that trait reappraisal was related to a lower subjective and cardiovascular experience of anger, at least in the short term.

There is some evidence that adolescents high in trait reappraisal are also able to regulate anger in response to interpersonal provocation (Vögele, Sorg, Studtmann, & Weber, 2010). In one study using an economic bargaining game (i.e., the Ultimatum Game), participants received unfair monetary offers that typically elicit anger. Participants then answered questions about the extent to which they engaged in reappraisal and rumination. The spontaneous use of reappraisal after receiving the unfair offers was positively correlated with greater HRV than spontaneous rumination. Higher HRV is a protective factor against mortality from coronary heart disease (Thayer, Yamamoto, & Brosschot, 2010). Together with Mauss et al. (2007) and Memedovic, Grisham, Denson, and Moulds (2010), these results provide nonexperimental evidence for the effectiveness of reappraisal in anger regulation.

Research also suggests that experimentally inducing reappraisal effectively reduces anger. Fabiansson and Denson (2012) compared the effect of cognitive reappraisal relative to distraction on anger. Participants were provoked by a fictitious participant who insulted them about their life goals. Following provocation, 87 undergraduate students engaged in cognitive reappraisal or distraction. In the distraction condition, participants wrote about neutral situations (e.g., the layout of the supermarket). Participants then played the Ultimatum Game with the participant who insulted them. Compared to the distraction condition, participants in the reappraisal condition reported being less angry during the negotiation and proposed fairer offers to other players. Thus, cognitive reappraisal might be more effective than distraction in reducing the experience and expression of anger.

Another experiment examined the effects of reappraisal on anger-induced cardiovascular responses (Stemmler, 1997). Sixty-one undergraduate women were provoked by being accused of noncompliance with task requirements. Participants received mitigating information about the provocateur’s behavior (e.g., the provocateur was not responsible for the aggressive act) or not. Such mitigating information can initiate the reappraisal process (Barlett & Anderson, 2011). Participants who were given mitigating information had lower diastolic blood pressure following the verbal insult than those who were not given mitigating information. There were no significant differences between conditions for heart rate. Indeed, there is also evidence that cognitive reappraisal elicits cardiovascular responses associated with reduced anger and better functioning compared to other strategies (Denson, Grisham, & Moulds, 2011; Germain & Kangas, 2015; Ray, Wilhelm, & Gross, 2008), although we note that these latter studies did not involve social interaction.

Angry rumination

Relative to other forms of anger regulation, by definition, angry rumination is associated with a tendency to experience prolonged anger. In one study, 93 undergraduate women and men completed a measure of angry rumination and were subsequently insulted by the experimenter (Denson, Pedersen, et al., 2011). Participants were then given the opportunity to retaliate by thwarting the experimenter’s chance of obtaining a lucrative paid position via an anonymous evaluation. They also reported levels of anger and spontaneous rumination. Trait rumination was positively related to all three outcomes.

In a much-cited experiment on the effects of angry rumination on anger and aggression, 600 participants were insulted and then asked to hit a punching bag (Bushman, 2002). Participants in the rumination condition were asked to think of the person who insulted them while hitting the bag. In the distraction condition, participants were asked to think about becoming physically fit. Participants in the control condition simply sat quietly for 2-min. Participants in the rumination condition reported being angrier about the provocation than those in the distraction and control conditions.

In a series of three experiments, undergraduates were insulted by the experimenter and then, under the guise of a 20-min writing task, instructed to either ruminate about the provocation or engage in distraction (Pedersen et al., 2011). Participants in the provocation-focused rumination condition wrote about their interaction with the experimenter and current feelings. Participants in the distraction condition wrote about the campus layout. Relative to distraction, rumination increased systolic blood pressure and anger. Thus, experimental manipulations of angry rumination suggest a reliable effect on increased anger and some evidence for enhanced cardiovascular reactivity.

To examine angry rumination and anger in real life, Borders and Lu (2017) instructed 171 undergraduate women and men to report their anger experiences and spontaneous rumination on palm pilots for 7 days. Trait levels of angry rumination predicted spontaneous rumination and both variables prospectively predicted subsequent angry rumination during the week, suggesting that once initiated, angry rumination maintains itself and the anger experience over time.

Mindfulness

Two studies examined trait mindfulness and aggression in romantic relationships (Barnes, Brown, Krusemark, Campbell, & Rogge, 2007; Kimmes, May, Seibert, & Jaurequi, & Fincham, 2018). Barnes, Brown, Krusemark, Campbell, and Rogge (2007) asked 57 undergraduate couples to discuss an important source of conflict in their relationship and complete self-report measures of trait and state mindfulness. The conflict discussions were recorded and behavioral expressions of anger and verbal aggression were coded using a standardized procedure. State mindfulness during the conflict discussion was significantly negatively related to both verbal aggression and negativity/conflict (i.e., displays of anger/irritation). Thus, being in a mindful state might help couples to regulate negative emotional displays and aggression during relationship conflict. However, there was no significant association between trait mindfulness and self-reported anger once pre-conflict levels of anger/hostility were included in the models. These results provide preliminary support for a positive role of state mindfulness on hostility and anger expression within romantic relationships.

The relationship between trait mindfulness and cardiovascular reactivity was examined among 90 heterosexual married couples during a conflict discussion task (Kimmes et al., 2018). The authors found that husband and wives’ trait mindfulness was negatively related to their own systolic blood pressure and cardiac sympathovagal tone during the conflict discussions. However, there was no relationship between trait mindfulness and diastolic blood pressure or HRV. Additionally, each spouse’s trait mindfulness was significantly inversely related to the other spouse’s cardiac sympathovagal tone during the conflict discussions. These findings suggest that mindfulness may be related to better cardiovascular functioning in couples during conflict discussions. In sum, within intimate relationships, people high in trait mindfulness or in a mindful state may be better able to lower anger and cardiovascular reactivity.

Aggressive behavior

Preliminary research has begun to investigate how individual differences in emotion regulation influence aggressive behavior. In such studies, aggressive behavior is typically elicited through provocation. Provocation typically involves a confederate who verbally insults the participant (e.g., by undermining his or her intelligence or ability to follow simple instructions), steals points or money from the participant in a competitive game, or delivers an unexpected noise-blast or shock. Aggressive behavior is measured following the provocation. In the hot sauce paradigm, aggression is operationalized as the amount of hot sauce the participant assigns to the ostensible confederate (Lieberman, Solomon, Greenberg, & McGregor, 1999). Other procedures operationalize aggression as the intensity and duration of a noise-blast selected to deliver to the confederate in retaliation or the extent to which the participant blocks the confederate’s goals (e.g., earning money). Converging evidence shows that laboratory aggression experiments have good external validity (Anderson & Bushman, 1997).

Cognitive reappraisal and suppression

Barlett and Anderson (2011, Study 1) tested the hypothesis that people high in trait reappraisal would make use of mitigating information following a provocation and behave less aggressively than people low in trait reappraisal. Undergraduate women and men (N = 235) were insulted, praised, or neither praised nor insulted by a fictitious participant after writing an essay. They were then given mitigating information about the feedback (i.e., the insult was due to the other participant experiencing a relationship break-up) or given no such information. Participants were allowed to aggress by thwarting the other person’s chance of winning a USD$25 gift certificate. Participants who received mitigating information after provocation demonstrated reduced aggressive behavior compared to those who received no mitigating information. Moreover, this information had the greatest impact on participants who were low in trait reappraisal. When provoked and given mitigating information, participants low in trait reappraisal were more likely to report reduced revenge motivation and showed lower aggression. The authors speculated that those high in trait reappraisal might be better able to regulate anger using cognitive reappraisal habitually and therefore did not rely on mitigating information to the same extent as participants low in trait reappraisal. Thus, reappraisal seems important for reducing angry feelings and, in turn, behavioral aggression.

Some research examining the effects of anger regulation strategies on anger and aggressive behavior included potential moderators. One recent study (N = 180 undergraduates) investigated whether acute stress affects the ability to use cognitive reappraisal to control anger and reactive aggression (Zhan et al., 2017). Participants engaged in a stressful cold pressor task or a control task (i.e., submerging their hand in room temperature water) and were then insulted. Next, participants completed a sad mood induction, neutral mood induction, or cognitive reappraisal induction. Aggressive behavior was operationalized as the intensity and duration of a noise-blast delivered to the provoking participant. Acute stress impaired participants’ ability to regulate anger using cognitive reappraisal. Irrespective of stress, cognitive reappraisal did not reduce aggressive behavior compared to the sadness or neutral inductions. Further research is warranted to shed light on moderators that affect people’s ability to regulate aggression when provoked.

Scott, DiLillo, Maldonado, and Watkins (2015) manipulated reappraisal and suppression and compared their effects on displaced aggression in a sample of undergraduate men and women (N = 197). Participants completed a frustrating computer task and were then given the opportunity to deliver as much hot sauce as they wanted to a fictitious, innocent participant in another study. Participants in the reappraisal group were less aggressive than participants in the suppression group. However, because there was no control group, it remains uncertain whether reappraisal reduced aggression or suppression increased aggression.

Angry rumination

Relative to other forms of emotion regulation, there is a large body of evidence showing that experimental manipulations of angry rumination increase aggression (Denson, 2013). Following laboratory provocations, relative to distraction, angry rumination increases aggression toward the provocateur (Bushman, 2002; Denson, Pedersen, et al., 2011) and other participants in the study (i.e., displaced aggression; Bushman, Bonacci, Pedersen, Vasquez, & Miller, 2005). Alcohol intoxication augments this effect of rumination on aggression (Denson, Spanovic, et al., 2011; Denson, White, & Warburton, 2009). These effects are robust across numerous provocation inductions and operationalizations of aggression.

People high in trait angry rumination are also aggressive when provoked (Caprara, 1986; Collins & Bell, 1997; Denson, Pedersen, et al., 2011). Alcohol consumption makes individuals high in trait angry rumination even more aggressive. In one experiment, male and female participants (N = 516) were administered alcohol or placebo followed by provocation in the form of electric shocks from another fictitious participant (Borders & Giancola, 2011). When intoxicated, people high in trait angry rumination retaliated more aggressively than people low in trait rumination.

One ambitious study combined trait and experimental approaches to examine alcohol-related intimate partner aggression (Watkins, DiLillo, & Maldonado, 2015). Sixty-nine romantic couples completed measures of trait reappraisal and angry rumination, consumed alcohol or a placebo, and were randomly allocated to recall an angry memory while using either reappraisal or rumination, or allocated to a no-instruction control condition. Participants completed a noise-blast paradigm ostensibly against their partner and unprovoked and provoked aggression were observed. Among intoxicated participants in the rumination group, trait reappraisal was associated with lower unprovoked aggression. Trait rumination positively correlated with provoked intimate partner aggression in both the alcohol/rumination and placebo/control groups, suggesting a strong effect of trait angry rumination on aggression. In sum, angry rumination following provocation is a risk factor for increased aggression.

Mindfulness

Few experimental studies have investigated the effects of mindfulness on anger regulation and aggression. In one recent study, 46 participants were randomly assigned to 3 weeks of mindfulness training or a logical problem-solving control condition (DeSteno, Lim, Duong, & Condon, 2018). At the final laboratory session, participants were provoked and then completed the hot sauce aggression paradigm. Participants who completed the mindfulness training were less aggressive than participants in control condition (DeSteno et al., 2018). These findings suggest that training individuals in mindfulness skills through guided meditations may reduce aggressive responses to interpersonal provocation.

Another experiment examined the effect of mindfulness and self-control depletion on aggression (Yusainy & Lawrence, 2015). One-hundred and ten university students underwent either a depletion task or no-depletion control. They then completed a 15-min mindfulness induction or a neutral listening activity, followed by a noise-blast aggression task. Provocation was induced by exposure to low, medium, or high intensity blasts of white noise ostensibly delivered by another participant. The mindfulness induction moderated the effect of depletion on aggression at low and moderate levels of provocation, but not at high provocation. Specifically, depleted participants in the mindfulness condition showed less aggression than depleted participants in the control condition. However, for nondepleted participants, there were no differences in aggression between mindfulness and control groups (Yusainy & Lawrence, 2015). These findings suggest that even a brief mindfulness induction might buffer aggressive behavior when self-control resources are low.

An earlier study examined the effects of a brief mindfulness induction on aggression induced by social rejection (Heppner et al., 2008). Sixty undergraduates completed a 5-min mindfulness meditation or sat quietly. Participants were randomly assigned to be either socially accepted or rejected, ostensibly by peers, based on the content of a self-descriptive essay they had prepared. Participants then completed a noise-blast aggression task. Of the rejected participants, those who had previously completed the mindfulness induction administered shorter, less intense noise-blasts than those in the control condition (Heppner et al., 2008). Taken together, these studies indicate that mindfulness might attenuate the effect of social rejection on aggressive behavior.

Discussion

This review examined the efficacy of anger regulation strategies in affecting provoked anger, aggression, and cardiovascular responses in social contexts. The evidence supports the efficacy of both cognitive reappraisal and mindfulness in reducing provoked anger and aggression and demonstrates that angry rumination augments these phenomena. The limited data on the effects of suppression are mixed. Because most studies did not test more than one emotion regulation strategy, it is premature to draw firm conclusions about relative efficacy. However, the data suggest that cognitive reappraisal and mindfulness may be preferred forms of anger regulation in many interpersonal contexts. See Table 2 for a summary.

Table 2.

Summary of research on the effects of emotion regulation strategies on anger, aggression, and cardiovascular responses in laboratory studies.

	Anger	Aggression	Cardiovascular responses
Trait anger regulation
Reappraisal	Decreases	Decreases*	PNS^a
Suppression	No effect*	No data	No effect*
Angry rumination	Increases	Increases	SNS*^,b
Mindfulness	Decreases*	Decreases*	PNS*
Manipulated anger regulation
Reappraisal	Decreases*	Unclear	PNS*
Suppression	No data	Unclear*^,c	No data
Angry rumination	Increases	Increases	SNS*
Mindfulness	No effect*	Decreases	No data

Note. PNS = parasympathetic nervous system; SNS = sympathetic nervous system; HRV = heart rate variability.

^a The PNS was primarily activated during the emotion regulation strategy (as indicated by increased HRV, decreased blood pressure, and decreased sympathovagal tone).

^b The SNS was primarily activated during the emotion regulation strategy (as indicated by decreased HRV and increased blood pressure).

^c Due to the nature of the study design (i.e., lack of control group), the authors were unable to conclude whether suppression increased aggression relative to cognitive reappraisal, or cognitive reappraisal reduced aggression relative to suppression.

* The conclusions made were based on one study only.

One point of view is that all emotion regulation strategies can be useful, depending on contextual goals (Bonanno & Burton, 2013; McRae, 2016). In the current review, much of the research focused on reducing the experience and expression of anger and aggression. This focus is consistent with hedonic accounts of emotion regulation, which suggest that individuals are particularly motivated to reduce negative and increase positive experiences (Larsen, 2000). However, people may be motivated to increase or decrease anger and aggression in certain situations. Such counterhedonic regulation can be motivated by instrumental goals (e.g., increasing anger when expecting to engage in a confrontational task; Tamir, Mitchell, & Gross, 2008). Fighting against injustice and taking collective action may also require one to augment anger and possibly aggression (e.g., Leach, Iyer, & Pedersen, 2006). In such cases, angry rumination may be preferred.

Despite established adverse consequences, anger can have positive outcomes in interpersonal contexts. For example, one study found that disagreements and angry exchanges between married couples predicted improvement in marital satisfaction over time (although these exchanges were also related to current unhappiness and negative interactions in the home) (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989). Another study examined how people in intimate relationships used different communication styles to change their partners’ behavior (Overall, Fletcher, Simpson, & Sibley, 2009). Negative direct communication strategies such as coercion, making rigid demands, and using derogatory/blaming language predicted increased change in the targeted partners’ behavior over the next 12 months (as reported by the target partner). Further, because anger is approach-motivated (Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009) and typically occurs when one is threatened or goals are blocked (Novaco, 2016), it might be a protective factor in violent relationships. Anger and aggression might prompt self-defensive responses and promote self-preservation when threatened by physical abuse. In sum, reducing the anger experience is not always the ideal response to life’s provocations.

Future research

The current review provides some initial consideration of how and when anger regulation works, and for whom it works best. Research on anger regulation is needed in interpersonal contexts for which there is limited data (e.g., romantic partners, friends, family members, and colleagues). To our knowledge, Watkins, DiLillo, and Maldonado’s (2015) study is the only experiment to have examined the effects of manipulating emotion regulation strategies on anger, aggression, or cardiovascular responding during interactions between intimate partners. However, some indirect evidence of the consequences of emotion regulation strategies on these outcomes has been provided by studies using the Articulated Thoughts in Simulated Situations paradigm (Davison, Robins, & Johnson, 1983). This task involves participants listening to a jealousy-provoking recording while imagining that their partner is the actor. Participants then vocalize their responses. Initial work with this paradigm suggests that manipulated cognitive reappraisal may help reduce angry and aggressive vocalizations (Blake, Hopkins, Sprunger, Eckhardt, & Denson, 2018), even in individuals with a history of intimate partner aggression (Maldonado, DiLillo, & Hoffman, 2015).

Different strategies may be more effective or easier to use for different types of situations or relationships (e.g., when provoked by a boss versus a romantic partner). For instance, in some situations downregulating anger may produce aversive outcomes, such as when anger and aggression function to protect personal safety or motivate action to achieve a desired relationship goal. To investigate such contextual influences, and form valid conclusions about relative efficacy, additional research should directly compare different anger regulation strategies. The inclusion of appropriate control conditions would also strengthen the validity of such comparisons.

The research reviewed here has largely relied on healthy undergraduate samples. Focusing on university samples prevents examination of individual- and community-level characteristics that might affect anger regulation. To be confident that the findings reviewed here generalize to diverse samples, and therefore provide meaningful relevance cross-culturally and to clinical practice, replication with broader samples in needed. For example, studies with samples that are characterized by high levels of anger, impulse-control problems (e.g., forensic samples) and the use of largely ineffective emotion regulation strategies to manage anger (e.g., angry rumination in borderline personality disorder) (Sauer-Zavala, Geiger, & Baer, 2013) will be an important applied extension of this literature.

Other internal and external circumstances might affect certain individuals’ capacity to engage in one anger regulation strategy over another. For example, some populations may not be able to engage in cognitive reappraisal because they do not have enough cognitive resources (e.g., fatigue, poor concentration, low cognitive ability, poor executive functions, alcohol intoxication, PFC dysfunction), time, or motivation to do so. In these cases, strategies that involve fewer cognitive resources such suppression might be beneficial in the short term. Further, the laboratory studies we reviewed examined immediate or short-term consequences of anger regulation, highlighting the need for future research on longer term outcomes associated with emotion regulation strategies.

The scope of the current review highlights that research on anger regulation has largely overlooked mediating factors. Much remains unknown about how the different anger regulation strategies reduce subjective anger, cardiovascular responses, and aggressive behavior. Additional insight into process-level factors might provide key innovations in designing prevention and intervention strategies for reducing provoked anger and aggression in interpersonal contexts.

Conclusion

Cognitive reappraisal, suppression, angry rumination, and mindfulness differentially affect the regulation of provoked anger and aggression in interpersonal contexts. Most studies that examined cognitive reappraisal and mindfulness support their efficacy in reducing anger and aggression, whereas angry rumination increases such responses. The data for suppression are mixed. Investigation into individual and situational moderators may shed light on the relative efficacy of regulation strategies. In sum, anger regulation in interpersonal contexts is important because it helps individuals to achieve emotional goals (e.g., reducing angry experiences) and functional goals (e.g., controlling aggressive behavior, influencing another person’s behavior).

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Joanne R. Beames and Siobhan M. O’Dean were supported by Australian Postgraduate Awards. Thomas F. Denson was supported by a Future Fellowship from the Australian Research Council (FT140100291).

ORCID iD

Joanne R. Beames

Siobhan M. O’Dean

Thomas F. Denson

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: The research was not preregistered. Because the article was a review paper, the data and materials used in the research are not available.

References

Adam

Schönfelder

Forneck

Wessa

(2014). Regulating the blink: Cognitive reappraisal modulates attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 143.

Anderson

C. A.

Bushman

B. J.

(1997). External validity of “trivial” experiments: The case of laboratory aggression. Review of General Psychology, 1, 19–41.

Anderson

C. A.

Bushman

B. J.

(2002). Human aggression. Annual Review Psychology, 53, 27–51.

Arch

J. J.

Craske

M. G.

(2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness: Emotion regulation following a focused breathing induction. Behavior Research and Therapy, 44, 1849–1858.

Baer

R. A.

Smith

G. T.

Lykins

Button

Krietemeyer

Sauer

… Williams

J. M.

(2008). Construct validity of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire in meditating and nonmeditating samples. Assessment, 15, 329–342.

Barlett

C. P.

Anderson

C. A.

(2011). Reappraising the situation and its impact on aggressive behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1564–1573.

Barnes

Brown

K. W.

Krusemark

Campbell

W. K.

Rogge

R. D.

(2007). The role of mindfulness in romantic relationship satisfaction and responses to relationship stress. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33, 482–500.

Baron

K. G.

Smith

T. W.

Butner

Nealey-Moore

Hawkins

M. W.

Uchino

B. N.

(2007). Hostility, anger, and marital adjustment: Concurrent and prospective associations with psychosocial vulnerability. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30, 1–10.

Binder

de Quervain

D. J. F.

Friese

Luechinger

Boesiger

Rasch

(2012). Emotion suppression reduces hippocampal activity during successful memory encoding. NeuroImage, 63, 525–532.

10.

Blake

Hopkins

R. E.

Sprunger

Eckhardt

Denson

T. F.

(2018). Relationship quality and cognitive reappraisal moderate the effects of negative urgency on behavioral inclinations toward aggression and intimate partner violence. Psychology of Violence, 8, 218–228.

11.

Blascovich

Mendes

W. B.

Hunter

S. B.

Salomon

(1999). Social “facilitation” as challenge and threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 68–77.

12.

Bonanno

G. A.

Burton

C. L.

(2013). Regulatory flexibility. An individual differences perspective on coping and emotion regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 591–612.

13.

Borders

Giancola

P. R.

(2011). Trait and state hostile rumination facilitate alcohol-related aggression. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 72, 545–554.

14.

Borders

S. E.

(2017). The bidirectional associations between state anger and rumination and the role of trait mindfulness. Aggressive Behavior, 43, 342–351.

15.

Brosschot

J. F.

Thayer

J. F.

(1998). Anger inhibition, cardiovascular recovery, and vagal function: A model of the link between hostility and cardiovascular disease. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 20, 326–332.

16.

Buhle

J. T.

Silvers

J. A.

Wager

T. D.

Lopez

Onyemekwu

Kober

… Ochsner

K. N.

(2014). Cognitive reappraisal of emotion: A meta-analysis of human neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 24, 2981–2990.

17.

Bushman

B. J.

(2002). Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis, rumination, distraction, anger, and aggressive responding. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 724–731.

18.

Bushman

B. J.

Bonacci

A. M.

Pedersen

W. C.

Vasquez

E. A.

Miller

(2005). Chewing on it can chew you up: Effects of rumination on triggered displaced aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 969–983.

19.

Caprara

G. V.

(1986). Indicators of aggression: The dissipation-rumination scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 763–769.

20.

Carver

C. S.

Harmon-Jones

(2009). Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 183–204.

21.

Chida

Steptoe

(2009). The association of anger and hostility with future coronary heart disease. A meta-analytic review of prospective evidence. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 53, 936–946.

22.

Collins

Bell

(1997). Personality and aggression: The dissipation-rumination scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 751–755.

23.

Cutuli

(2014). Cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression strategies role in the emotion regulation: An overview on their modulatory effects and neural correlates. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8, 175.

24.

Darwin

(1872). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. London, UK: John Murray.

25.

Davison

G. C.

Robins

Johnson

M. K.

(1983). Articulated thoughts during simulated situations: A paradigm for studying cognition in emotion and behavior. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 7, 17–39.

26.

Denson

T. F.

(2013). The multiple systems model of angry rumination. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 103–123.

27.

Denson

T. F.

Grisham

J. R.

Moulds

M. L.

(2011). Cognitive reappraisal increases heart rate variability in response to an anger provocation. Motivation and Emotion, 35, 14–22.

28.

Denson

Pedersen

W. C.

Friese

Hahm

Roberts

(2011). Understanding impulsive aggression. Angry rumination and reduced self-control capacity are mechanisms underlying the provocation-aggression relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 850–862.

29.

Denson

T. F.

Pedersen

W. C.

Ronquillo

Nandy

A. S.

(2009). The angry brain: Neural correlates of anger, angry rumination, and aggressive personality. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 734–744.

30.

Denson

T. F.

Spanovic

Aviles

F. E.

Pollock

V. E.

Earleywine

Miller

(2011). The effects of acute alcohol intoxication and self-focused rumination on triggered displaced aggression. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 20, 128–147.

31.

Denson

T. F.

White

A. J.

Warburton

W. A.

(2009). Trait displaced aggression and psychopathy differentially moderate the effects of acute alcohol intoxication and rumination on triggered displaced aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 673–681.

32.

DeSteno

Lim

Duong

Condon

(2018). Meditation inhibits aggressive responses to provocations. Mindfulness, 9, 1117–1122.

33.

Dillon

D. G.

Ritchey

Johnson

B. D.

LaBar

K. S.

(2007). Dissociable effects of conscious emotion regulation strategies on explicit and implicit memory. Emotion, 7, 354–365.

34.

Ding

Yang

Qian

Gordon-Hollingsworth

(2015). Specific effects of anger rumination on particular executive functions. Psychological Reports, 117, 825–841.

35.

Dunn

B. D.

Billotti

Murphy

Dalgleish

(2009). The consequences of effortful emotion regulation when processing distressing material: A comparison of suppression and acceptance. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47, 761–773.

36.

Fabiansson

E. C.

Denson

T. F.

(2012). The effects of intrapersonal anger and its regulation in economic bargaining. PloS One, 7, e51595.

37.

Fennell

A. B.

Benau

E. M.

Atchley

R. A.

(2016). A single session of meditation reduces of physiological indices of anger in both experienced and novice meditators. Consciousness and Cognition, 40, 54–66.

38.

Gan

Zhang

Yang

Chen

(2017). High working memory load impairs the effect of cognitive reappraisal on emotional response: Evidence from an event-related potential study. Neuroscience Letters, 639, 126–131.

39.

Germain

C. L.

Kangas

(2015). Trait anger symptoms and emotion regulation. The effectiveness of reappraisal, acceptance and suppression strategies in regulating anger. Behaviour Change, 32, 35–45.

40.

Gilam

Hendler

(2016). Deconstructing anger in the human brain. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences, 30, 257–273.

41.

Gottman

J. M.

Krokoff

L. J.

(1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 47–52.

42.

Gross

J. J.

(2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39, 281–291.

43.

Gross

J. J.

(2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26, 1–26.

44.

Hill

C. L.

Updegraff

J. A.

(2012). Mindfulness and its relationship to emotional regulation. Emotion, 12, 81–90.

45.

Heppner

W. L.

Kernis

M. H.

Lakey

C. E.

Campbell

W. K.

Goldman

B. M.

Davis

P. J.

Cascio

E. V.

(2008). Mindfulness as a means of reducing aggressive behavior: Dispositional and situational evidence. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 486–496.

46.

Herrero

Gadea

Rodríguez-Alarcón

Espert

Salvador

(2010). What happens when we get angry? Hormonal, cardiovascular and asymmetrical brain responses. Hormones and Behavior, 57, 276–283.

47.

Hershcovis

M. S.

Turner

Barling

Arnold

K. A.

Dupré

K. E.

Inness

… Sivanathan

(2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228–238.

48.

Hölzel

B. K.

Lazar

S. W.

Gard

Schuman-Olivier

Vago

D. R.

Ott

(2011). How does mindfulness meditation work? Proposing mechanisms of action from a conceptual and neural perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 537–559.

49.

Kabat-Zinn

(2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 144–156.

50.

Kimmes

J. G.

May

R. W.

Seibert

G. S.

Jaurequi

M. E.

Fincham

F. D.

(2018). The association between trait mindfulness and cardiovascular reactivity during marital conflict. Mindfulness, 9, 1160–1169.

51.

Kuppens

(2005). Interpersonal determinants of trait anger: Low agreeableness, perceived low social esteem, and the amplifying role of the importance attached to social relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 13–23.

52.

Larsen

R. J.

(2000). Toward a science of mood regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 129–141.

53.

Leach

C. W.

Iyer

Pedersen

(2006). Anger and guilt about ingroup advantage explain the willingness for political action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1232–1245.

54.

Lieberman

J. D.

Solomon

Greenberg

McGregor

H. A.

(1999). A hot new way to measure aggression: Hot sauce allocation. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 331–348.

55.

Lutz

Herwig

Opialla

Hittmeyer

Jäncke

Rufer

… Brühl

A. B

. (2014). Mindfulness and emotion regulation—An fMRI study. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9, 776–785.

56.

Maldonado

R. C.

DiLillo

Hoffman

(2015). Can college students use emotion regulation strategies to alter intimate partner aggression-risk behaviors? An examination using I³ theory. Psychology of Violence, 5, 46–55.

57.

Marchand

W. R.

(2014). Neural mechanisms of mindfulness and meditation: Evidence from neuroimaging studies. World Journal of Radiology, 6, 471–479.

58.

Mauss

I. B.

Cook

C. L.

Cheng

J. Y. J.

Gross

J. J.

(2007). Individual differences in cognitive reappraisal. Experiential and physiological responses to an anger provocation. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 66, 116–124.

59.

Memedovic

Grisham

J. R.

Denson

T. F.

Moulds

M. L.

(2010). The effects of trait reappraisal and suppression on anger and blood pressure in response to provocation. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 540–543.

60.

McRae

(2016). Cognitive emotion regulation. A review of theory and scientific findings. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 10, 119–124.

61.

Norlander

Eckhardt

(2005). Anger, hostility, and male perpetrators of intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 119–152.

62.

Novaco

R. W.

(2011). Anger dysregulation: Driver of violent offending. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 22, 650–668.

63.

Novaco

R. W.

(2016). Anger. In Fink

(Ed.), Stress: Concepts, cognition, emotion, and behavior (pp. 285–292). London, UK: Academic Press.

64.

Overall

N. C.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Simpson

J. A.

Sibley

C. G.

(2009). Regulating partners in intimate relationships: The costs and benefits of different communication strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 620–639.

65.

M. L.

Raes

Kuppens

(2013). The cognitive building blocks of emotion regulation: Ability to update working memory moderates the efficacy of rumination and reappraisal on emotion. PloS One, 8, e69071.

66.

Pedersen

W. C.

Denson

T. F.

Goss

R. J.

Vasquez

E. A.

Kelley

N. J.

Miller

(2011). The impact of rumination on aggressive thoughts, feelings, arousal, and behaviour. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 281–301.

67.

Phillips

L. H.

Henry

J. D.

Hosie

J. A.

Milne

A. B.

(2006). Age, anger regulation and well-being. Aging and Mental Health, 10, 250–256.

68.

Ray

R. D.

Wilhelm

F. H.

Gross

J. J.

(2008). All in the mind’s eye? Anger rumination and reappraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 133–145.

69.

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.

70.

Sauer-Zavala

S. E.

Geiger

P. J.

Baer

R. A.

(2013). The effect of anger rumination in the relationship between borderline personality disorder symptoms and precursors. Journal of Personality Disorders, 27, 465–472.

71.

Scott

J. P.

DiLillo

Maldonado

R. C.

Watkins

L. E.

(2015). Negative urgency and emotion regulation strategy use. Associations with displaced aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 41, 502–512.

72.

Sheppes

Gross

J. J.

(2011). Is timing everything? Temporal considerations in emotion regulation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 319–331.

73.

Stemmler

(1997). Selective activation of traits. Boundary conditions for the activation of anger. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 213–233.

74.

Stemmler

(2010). Somatovisceral activation during anger. In Potegal

Stemmler

Spielberger

C. D.

(Eds.), International hand-book of anger (pp. 103–121). New York, NY: Springer.

75.

Tamir

Mitchell

Gross

J. J.

(2008). Hedonic and instrumental motives in anger regulation. Psychological Science, 19, 324–328.

76.

Tang

Y. Y.

Fan

Feng

Wang

Feng

… Fan

(2009). Central and autonomic nervous system interaction is altered by short-term meditation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 8865–8870.

77.

Thayer

J. F.

Yamamoto

S. S.

Brosschot

J. F.

(2010). The relationship of autonomic imbalance, heart rate variability and cardiovascular disease risk factors. International Journal of Cardiology, 141, 122–131.

78.

Vanderhasselt

M. A.

Kühn

De Raedt

(2012). “Put on your poker face”: Neural systems supporting the anticipation for expressive suppression and cognitive reappraisal. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8, 903–910.

79.

Vögele

Sorg

Studtmann

Weber

(2010). Cardiac autonomic regulation and anger coping in adolescents. Biological Psychology, 85, 465–471.

80.

Wager

T. D.

Davidson

M. L.

Hughes

B. L.

Lindquist

M. A.

Ochsner

K. N.

(2008). Prefrontal-subcortical pathways mediating successful emotion regulation. Neuron, 59, 1037–1050.

81.

Watkins

L. E.

DiLillo

Maldonado

R. C.

(2015). The interactive effects of emotion regulation and alcohol intoxication on lab-based intimate partner aggression. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 29, 653–663.

82.

White

B. A.

Turner

K. A.

(2014). Anger rumination and effortful control: Mediation effects on reactive but not proactive aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 186–189.

83.

Williams

(2017). Anger as a basic emotion and its role in personality building and pathological growth: The neuroscientific, developmental and clinical perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–9.

84.

Yusainy

Lawrence

(2015). Brief mindfulness induction could reduce aggression after depletion. Consciousness and Cognition, 33, 125–134.

85.

Zhan

Fan

Guo

Zhou

Ren

… Luo

(2017). Regulating anger under stress via cognitive reappraisal and sadness. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–13.