Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dispositional anger and risk decision-making

  • Published:
Mind & Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, we assessed the influence of trait anger on decisions in risky situations evaluating how it might interact with some contextual factors. One hundred and fifty-eight participants completed the Trait Anger scale of STAXI-2 (T-Ang) and an inventory consisting of a battery of hypothetical everyday decision-making scenarios, representative of three specific domains: financial, social and health. Participants were also asked to evaluate familiarity and salience for each scenario. This study provides evidence for a relationship between individual differences in the tendency to feel anger and risky decisions in different domains and for mediation effects of familiarity and salience perception. The evaluation of the mechanisms with which dispositional anger is linked to risky decision-making could further contribute to an understanding of the role of personality traits in decision-making processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the pilot study, a separate group of 36 participants (18 women and 18 men, M = 33.77 years, SD = 11.18) were asked to read the initial set of 26 scenarios and rate each option for “How much effort it would involve” and “How much risk it would involve”, using a 7-point scale (1 = “hardly any”, 7 = “a great deal”), following the procedure of Hockey et al. (2000). Six items were excluded because they did not show a significant difference across risky and safe choice options. For the effort balance, another six scenarios were excluded, which presented, in the risky option, a higher effort level then in the safe option. The final set of 14 scenarios had an adequate level of internal consistency (α = 0.71) and a good test–retest reliability (r = 0.78, p < 0.001) for this kind of study (Hockey et al. 2000). Separate paired t test showed that options originally designated as “risky” were rated as significantly more risky (at p < 0.05 or better) than those originally designated as “safe”. Moreover, the differences between overall means were highly significant, t(25) = 8.88, p < 0.001. For the effort comparison, in two scenarios the safe option resulted as involving significantly more effort than the risky option, in two other scenarios effort was higher for the risky option and in ten others there was no significant difference. Moreover, there was no difference between the overall mean perceived effort requirement of risky (M = 4.49, SD = 0.79) and safe options (M = 4.41, SD = 0.82) across the full set of 14 scenarios, t(25) = 0.32, p = 0.75. Thus, risky and safe choice options were effectively balanced for the effort demands.

References

  • Arkes HR, Dawes RM, Christensen C (1988) Factors influencing the use of a decision rule in a probabilistic task. In: Dowie J, Elstein AS (eds) Professional judgment: a reader in clinical decision making. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Averill JR (1982) Anger and aggression: an essay on emotion. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:1173–1182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck AT (1999) Prisoners of hate: the cognitive basis of anger, hostility, and violence. Harper Collins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Comunian L (2004) Manuale STAXI-2 State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2. Adattamento italiano. Organizzazioni Speciali, Firenze

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlbäck O (1990) Personality and risk-taking. Pers Individ Dif 11:1235–1242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deffenbacher JL (1992) Trait anger: theory, findings, and implications. In: Spielberger CD, Butcher JN (eds) Advances in personality assessment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSteno D, Petty RE, Wegener DT, Rucker DD (2000) Beyond valence in the perception of likelihood: the role of emotion specificity. J Pers Soc Psychol 78:397–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fessler DMT, Pillsworth EG, Flamson TJ (2004) Angry men and disgusted Women: an evolutionary approach to the influence of emotions on risk-taking. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 95:107–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B (1985) Managing risk perceptions. Issue Sci Technol 2:83–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B, Gonzalez RM, Lerner JS, Small DA (2005) Evolving judgments of terror risks: foresight, hindsight, and emotion. J Exp Psychol Appl 11:124–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forgays DG, Forgays DK, Spielberger CD (1997) Factor structure of the state-trait anger expression inventory. J Pers Assess 69:497–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasper K, Clore GL (1998) The persistent use of negative affect by anxious individuals to estimate risk. J Pers Soc Psychol 74:1350–1363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross JJ, Sutton SK, Ketelaar T (1998) Relations between affect and personality: support for the affect-level and affective-reactivity views. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 24:279–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen CH, Hansen RD (1988) Finding the face in the crowd: an anger superiority effect. J Pers Soc Psychol 54:917–924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemenover SH, Zhang S (2004) Anger, personality, and optimistic stress appraisals. Cogn Emot 18:363–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hockey R (1997) Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload: a cognitive-energetical framework. Biol Psychol 45:73–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hockey R, Maule J, Clough P, Bdzola L (2000) Effects of negative mood states on risk in everyday decision making. Cogn Emot 14:823–855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassinove H, Roth D, Owens SG, Fuller JR (2002) Effects of trait anger and anger expression style on competitive attack responses in a wartime prisoner’s dilemma game. Aggress Behav 28:117–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keltner D, Ellsworth PC, Edwards K (1993) Beyond simple pessimism: effects of sadness and anger on social perception. J Pers Soc Psychol 64:740–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogan N, Wallach MA (1964) Risk-taking: a study in cognition and personality. Holt, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauriola M, Russo P, Lucidi F, Violani C, Levin IP (2005) The role of personality in positively and negatively framed risky health decisions. Pers Individ Dif 38:45–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus RS (1991) Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus RS (1994) The stable and the unstable in emotion. In: Ekman P, Davidson R (eds) The nature of emotion: fundamental questions. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner J, Keltner D (2000) Beyond valence: toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cogn Emot 14:473–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner J, Keltner D (2001) Fear, anger, and risk. J Pers Soc Psychol 81:146–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner JS, Tiedens LZ (2006) Portrait of the angry decision maker: how appraisal tendencies shape anger’s influence on cognition. J Behav Decis Making 19:115–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner JS, Gonzalez RM, Small DA, Fischhoff B (2003) Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism: a national field experiment. Psychol Sci 14:144–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenstein G, Lerner J (2003) The role of affect in decision-making. In: Davidson R, Scherer K, Goldsmith H (eds) Handbook of affective science. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Maner JK, Richey JA, Cromer K, Mallott M, Lejuez CW, Joiner E, Schmidt NB (2007) Dispositional anxiety and risk-avoidant decision-making. Pers Individ Dif 42:665–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGiure M, Troisi A (1990) Anger: An evolutionary view. In: Plutchik R, Kellerman H (eds) Emotion, psychopathology, and psychotherapy. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson B (1996) Emotions are social. Br J Psychol 87:663–683

    Google Scholar 

  • Pietromonaco PR, Rook KS (1987) Decision style in depression: the contribution of perceived risks versus benefit. J Pers Soc Psychol 52:399–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quigley BM, Tedeschi JT (1996) Mediating effects of blame attributions on feelings of anger. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 22:1280–1288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. Risk Anal 24:311–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith CA, Ellsworth PC (1985) Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotions. J Pers Soc Psychol 48:813–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobel ME (1982) Asymptotic interval for indirect effects in structural equations models. In: Leinhart S (ed) Sociological methodology 1982. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Spielberger CD (1999) State-trait anger expression inventory-2: professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates JF, Stone ER (1992) The risk construct. In: Yates JF (ed) Risk-taking behaviour. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Elisa Gambetti & Fiorella Giusberti

Authors
  1. Elisa Gambetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fiorella Giusberti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisa Gambetti.

Appendices

Appendix 1

  1. 1.

    I am a choleric person (T-Ang/T)

  2. 2.

    I am quickly tempered (T-Ang-T)

  3. 3.

    I am an impulsive person (T-Ang-T)

  4. 4.

    I get angry when I have to wait because of other’s mistakes (T-Ang-R)

  5. 5.

    I feel annoyed when I am not given recognition for job well done (T-Ang-R)

  6. 6.

    I fly off the handle (T-Ang-T)

  7. 7.

    When I get bad, I say nasty things (T-Ang)

  8. 8.

    I get angry when I’m told I’m wrong in front of the others (T-Ang-R)

  9. 9.

    When I am frustrated, I feel like hitting someone (T-Ang)

  10. 10.

    I feel infuriated when I do a good job and get a poor evaluation (T-Ang-R)

Appendix 2

2.1 Financial domain

Speed limit You fall into a sound sleep and you risk arriving too late for an important work appointment. You have to drive through a built up area which has a 30 miles an hour limit. The street lighting is very good and there are very few people about. You wonder whether you should exceed the speed limit or stay within it.

  1. A.

    Exceed the speed limit

  2. B.

    Stay within the limit

Expensive restaurant You have been invited to dinner in a expensive restaurant by a few wealthy friends, which a long time since you not saw. You know that the cost of the dinner is very high and you are afraid you cannot afford its. You wonder whether to stay at home, finding a pretext for refusing the invitation, or go to the restaurant, hoping that you can bear the cost of the dinner in the end.

  1. A.

    Go to dinner

  2. B.

    Stay home

2.2 Social domain

Pub outing You start a new job and on Friday you hear people talking about going to the pub when they finish work. You would like to get to know your colleagues better but you have not received an invitation. You are unsure whether this is deliberate or an oversight. You pass the pub on your way home and wonder whether to call in anyway or not.

  1. A.

    Call in to the pub

  2. B.

    Do not call in

Work You have opposite political views of what most of yours colleagues thought. During an informal discussion, a colleague ask you an opinion on a specific political issue. You can express your opinion, but you know that if you say openly yours ideas you would be to stay in a embarrassing situation. You wonder what you should do.

  1. A.

    Express your opinion

  2. B.

    Keep quiet

2.3 Health domain

Headache You have been suffering from a very bad headache for a long time. Your doctor says that there is a new experimental drug available and asks if you want to try it, even though the side effects may be very dangerous for you.

  1. A.

    Take the experimental drug

  2. B.

    Do not take it

Infection Your doctor informs you that you have a viral infection and it is important that you have plenty of rest and keep warm. Without ample rest the infection may become more serious and may even require hospitalization. However, you have an important meeting at work, which you very much want to attend as it may have a significant effect on your future. You wonder what you should do.

  1. A.

    Stay home

  2. B.

    Attend the meeting

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gambetti, E., Giusberti, F. Dispositional anger and risk decision-making. Mind Soc 8, 7–20 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-008-0052-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-008-0052-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation