Research examining emotion regulation suggests that individuals want to feel emotions that will help them get closer to their performance goals (Tamir et al., 2007 and Tamir et al., 2008) to such a degree that they may be willing to experience unpleasant emotions to that end (Tamir & Ford, 2009). For example, although anger is generally recognized as an unpleasant emotion, it has been found to be useful for confrontation and the performance of gross muscular tasks (Parrot, 2001 and Woodman et al., 2009).
Previous research examining the anger–performance relationship (e.g., Uphill and Jones, 2007 and Woodman et al., 2009) has identified Lazarus, 1991 and Lazarus, 2000a cognitive–motivational–relational (CMR) theory of emotion as a particularly useful framework for exploring this relationship. CMR theory proposes that individuals engage in a process of appraisals aimed at evaluating the risk and reward in particular situations. These appraisals culminate in a core relational theme that summarizes the interaction between the individual and the environment (Lazarus, 1991 and Lazarus, 2000a). The core relational theme forms the basis of each emotion and is associated with an action tendency reflecting the assessment of the situational stimulus in relation to the individual (Lazarus, 2000a). The core relational theme of anger is, “a demeaning offence against me and mine” (Lazarus, 2000a, p. 242), which links to the associated action tendency of, “a powerful impulse to counterattack in order to gain revenge for an affront or repair a wounded self-esteem” (Lazarus, 2000a, p. 243). CMR theory suggests that anger’s influence on performance will vary depending on the demands of the task. Specifically, if a task requires a “lashing out” motion, then anger may facilitate performance because anger’s action tendency and the task demands are closely aligned. Conversely, if the action tendency is not aligned with task demands, anger will likely divert resources away from the task and performance will suffer (Lazarus, 2000b). There is some support for this position (e.g., Robazza and Bortoli, 2007 and Woodman et al., 2009).
Although CMR theory is not explicitly concerned with moderators, its theoretical basis allows it to be extended to the investigation of potential moderator variables (e.g., individual differences) that may influence the relationship between specific emotions (e.g., anger) and performance. For example, some personality traits have been found to moderate anger’s influence on verbal aggression as well as cognitive and physical performance (Perbandt, 2007, Smits and De Boeck, 2007, Smulders and Meijer, 2008 and Woodman et al., 2009).
In particular, trait anger is proposed to have a role in the experience of anger and its influence on performance (Smits et al., 2004 and Spielberger et al., 1983). Trait anger reflects an individual’s tendency toward experiencing anger, and has been reported to influence the frequency and intensity of angry feelings (Spielberger et al., 1983). Moreover, trait anger is associated with an increased frequency of angry feelings and the promotion of anger’s action tendency including verbal acts of aggression (Smits et al., 2004). Equally, if a task requires the execution of a lashing out movement (i.e., it is aligned with anger’s action tendency), then trait anger should enhance performance (Lazarus, 2000b). This is the first hypothesis of the present study.
As well as examining the effects of anger on performance (e.g., Hagtvet & Hanin, 2007), recent research has explored individuals’ attempts to regulate anger (Smits & De Boeck, 2007). This research has focused on the direction of one’s anger; specifically anger-out and anger-in (Averill, 1983, Smits and De Boeck, 2007, Smits and Kuppens, 2005 and Spielberger et al., 1995). Anger-out refers to the predisposition to convey one’s anger outward (toward an external target) and corresponds with the release of anger’s action tendency (Smits & Kuppens, 2005). Anger-in refers to the predisposition to direct one’s anger inward (i.e., “bottle it up”) and has been associated with attempts to suppress anger’s action tendency (Smits and De Boeck, 2007 and Smits et al., 2004). Consequently, on a task that requires the execution of a lashing out motion (i.e., that is aligned to anger’s action tendency), anger-out should be associated with enhanced performance on the peak force task and anger-in should be associated with reduced performance. This is the second hypothesis of the present study.
The picture is unlikely to be this simple, however. Indeed, the performance effectiveness of trait anger also is likely to be influenced by the direction of one’s anger (Smits & De Boeck, 2007). Given that anger-out is associated with the release of anger’s action tendency (Smits and De Boeck, 2007 and Smits et al., 2004) it should enhance trait anger-derived performance enhancement. Conversely, as anger-in prevents the expression of anger’s action tendency it should have an inhibiting effect on trait anger-derived performance enhancement. This interaction is the final hypothesis of the present study. That is, we expected anger regulation strategies to moderate the trait anger–performance relationship such that anger-out would enhance that relationship and anger-in would suppress that relationship.
