The Huron University College Journal of Learning and
Motivation
Volume 51 | Issue 1
Article 10
2013
Gender Differences and Misattribution in Anger
Arousal
Angela Westgate-Forster
Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/hucjlm
Part of the Psychology Commons
Recommended Citation
Westgate-Forster, Angela (2013) "Gender Differences and Misattribution in Anger Arousal," The Huron University College Journal of
Learning and Motivation: Vol. 51: Iss. 1, Article 10.
Available at: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/hucjlm/vol51/iss1/10
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Psychology at Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Huron
University College Journal of Learning and Motivation by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
Gender Differences and Misattribution in Anger Arousal
Angela Westgate-Forster
Huron College
Gender differences are not often studied in the field of
arousal misattribution. This research examines 40 male and
female participants in a neutral condition and an anger
arousal condition to determine if there is an effect of gender.
Participants were undergraduate students from Huron
University College. Each participant was asked to look at
photographs of either neutral or anger arousing stimulus and
then rate the attractiveness of eight photographs of male and
female faces. They were then asked to fill out a short
questionnaire. Results showed no significant gender effect,
F(1,36) = 1.44, p> 0.05. Possible explanations and previous
research theories are discussed.
Researchers have looked at the relationship between different kinds of arousal
and how they affect each other in order to better understand the entire arousal system.
While connections have been shown between "fear, aggression, attraction, sexual
responses, guilt, discomfort and humor" (Cotton, 1981) the connection between
attraction arousal and other emotional arousals appear to be greater (Dutton & Aron,
1974). The Schachter Two Factor Theory of Emotion attempts to explain how the
arousal system works with two main points. The first, that physiological arousal occurs,
and the second, that humans (with the human propensity to identify and label
everything) label the arousal and its cause (Cotton, 1981). Schachter further theorizes
that when arousal is unattributed to anything in particular, it will then become
misattributed to the next emotionally arousing stimulus encountered (Cotton, 1981).
Critics of the Schachter theory have found little corroborating evidence in support.
Gender and Misattribution
except to say that emotional states are increased by non-related arousal stimulus; the
reasons remain unclear (Reisenzein, 1983).
Most studies have used male participants to attempt to show and/or explain
varying hypotheses. The Dutton & Aron Bridge Study in 1974 tested all males on one of
two bridges, a solid concrete bridge or a wooden rickety bridge, both high above the
ground, to induce fear or anxiety in subjects. An attractive confederate posing as a
psychology research student asked males exiting the bridge to participate in a Thematic
Apperception Test, then answer a short questionnaire, after which she offered her name
and telephone number in case they had any questions. They found that the males who
exited the rickety bridge called the number, and even asked her for a date, far more
frequently than those who exited the solid concrete bridge (Dutton & Aron, 1974).
Another study looked at increased rates of bidding at auctions when male participants
were previously aroused by being required to recall a competitive event in their lives
that made them feel excited vs. the control group who were asked to recall a
competitive event that made them feel calm (Ku, Galinsky & Murnighan, 2008). There
has been some conflict when testing the paradigm with female participants. Meston &
Frohlich found that male and female participants both rated higher levels of attraction to
photographs of faces after riding a roller coaster when compared with males and
females waiting in line to ride (2003). However, when Reisenzein reviewed several
published papers involving females, he found that overall, females do not show similar
results of significant misattribution arousal to stimuli (1983). Since it's been shown that
anger arousal and attraction arousal are more likely to have a connection, we sought to
show that arousing a small level of anger in females would show no significant increase
Gender and Misattribution
in attraction rating of photographs of faces and arousing a low level of anger in males
would produce higher attraction ratings to photographs.
Method
Participants
The participants were 40 undergraduate students from Huron University College,
a small liberal arts college located in London, Ontario and affiliated with the University of
Western Ontario. There were 20 female and 20 male participants randomly assigned to
two groups.
Materials
Participants were given an information sheet to read outlining the general nature
of the study. Written consent was obtained. Two booklets were prepared with two sets
of photographs. In the neutral stimulus booklet there were four photographs depicting
neutral scenes, chosen specifically for their non-arousing content. In the anger
arousing booklet, four photographs were chosen, depicting scenes of violence or
impending violence. Following the four scenes in both booklets, there were four male
and four female faces. A short questionnaire followed. Participants were given a
debriefing letter which outlined the exact nature of the study along with the researcher's
name and contact information.
Procedure
Two booklets were prepared. The first showed four photographs of hands
holding a small sapling, an elegant but plain dining room with neutral colours, a pale
green pottery jar, and the backs of two people walking through the woods in winter. All
Gender and Misattribution
had little colour so as not to introduce any arousal variable of colour. The anger
stimulus booklet showed four photographs of a police officer pepper spraying (at close
range) a group of seated peaceful protesters, a man with a bag over his head holding a
child seen through barbed wire, a hunter pointing a rifle at a large deer, and two dogs
fighting with a crowd of men in a circle around them. Both booklets then had eight
pages, each showing a full colour photograph of a face of first, four females, then four
males. Packets were prepared with an information sheet giving a very brief outline of
the study, followed by a consent form for willing participants to sign, then a page of
eight, seven point Likert scale ratings, then a final page with a short questionnaire, with
seven point Likert scales to rate their current mood. Once participants completed the
study, they were given a one page Debriefing Form giving more information regarding
the study and contact information of the researcher in case there were further
questions. Each participant looked at the booklets and filled out the packets at the table
and took no longer than 10 minutes.
Results
A two-way, between-subjects analysis of variance (N=40) revealed that there
was no main effect of gender on attraction rating, F(1,36) = 1.44, p> 0.05 {Figure 1).
Male participants (M = 32.45, SD = 6.11) showed no difference in attraction ratings over
females (M = 34.6, SD = 5.25). There was also no main effect of stimulus, F(1,36) =
2.02, p>0.05. Participants in the anger arousal condition (M = 34.8, SD = 6.31) did not
differ in attraction ratings from the neutral condition (M = 32.25, SD = 4.9). Finally, there
was no significant interaction between gender and stimulus, F(1,39) = 0.28, p>0.05
{Figure 2).
1 - Neutral
2 - Anger
Figure 2. Mean male and female attraction ratings in neutral vs. anger arousing photographs
Gender and Misattribution
Source
Between
A (gender)
B (stimulus)
Interaction
Within
Totals
SS
df
F
MS
46.22
1
46.22
1.44
65.03
1
65.03
2.02
0.28
9.02
1
9.02
1157.70
36
32.16
1277.97
39
Figure 1.
Manipulation Check
To rule out the possible confound that the anger stimulating photographs were
ineffectual, the short questionnaire following the ratings asked participants to rate their
level of anger on a seven point Likert scale. A two-tailed, independent-samples f-test
revealed there was a significant difference between the mean rating of neutral stimulus
(M = 1.44, SD = 0.78) and the anger stimulus group (M = 2.72, SD = 1.78), f(38) = 2.79,
p<0.05.
Discussion
Our study looked for differences in attraction ratings in men and women but did
not find significance in our statistical analysis possibly due to sample size. Research
review by Cotton in 1981 cited a report by Brehm, Gatz, Goethals McCrimmon & Ward
that showed misattributed arousal in perceived shock conditions but did not show
arousal to photographs of vehicular accidents, so it might be argued that the angry
photographs we used were not stimulating enough to allow for increased misattribution.
In order to show any levels of arousal, there must be a valid test to show that the
difference between the aroused and non-aroused group are greatly different
(Reisenzein, 1983). In our manipulation check, it was shown that we did in fact arouse
anger in the anger stimulus group vs. the neutral stimulus group. Meston & Frohlich
stated that arousal dissipates over time and not just because the stimulus has been
terminated, therefore we can be fairly confident that we did elicit enough of an anger
level in our experimental group (2003). Further, Dutton & Aron argue that since there's
a lapse of time until the arousal terminates, arousal is free to be misattributed to
whatever stimulus is next encountered (1989).
Schachter's Two Factor Theory of Emotion suggests that labelling is an important
component when attributing an emotion to a stimulus; Dutton & Aron argue that the
males in their Bridge Study may have relabelled their fear and anxiety arousal as
attraction because there was an object to which they could project. It is interesting to
note that during the selection process for the photos in our study, we informally pretested many photographs to determine if they would arouse anger. Any photo that
showed an object to project anger towards elicited anger, whereas photographs
showing a victim but not an aggressor elicited empathy. Supporting Schachter's theory.
Cotton reported in his review of several studies that cognition plays a role in
misattribution. When insomniacs are given a pill that they are told causes arousal
symptoms (that is really a placebo) such as increased heart rate, insomniacs
misattributed their 'awake' state to the pill and not to their general insomnia and
therefore fell asleep faster than the control group who were told their pill would make
them relaxed (Cotton, 1981). During the course of our study, participants flipped
through the photographs of faces very quickly, suggesting that there was little cognitive
processing going on. Researches have previously argued that attraction is largely an
autonomic response and not cognitive, which counters Schachter's theory (Allen,
Kenrick, Under & McCall, 1989).
Gender and Misattribution
To counter the misattribution theory, Allen et al. point to Hull's response
facilitation theory as the best explanation (1989). Response facilitation theory suggests
that any general arousal adds to the sum of all arousals and accumulated arousal is
heightened and then refocused on the next available arousal stimulus, whatever that
may be (Allen et al., 1989). Review of several arousal studies have found that
combined arousal also intensifies general arousal (Reisenzein, 1983). Dutton & Aron
also argue that the cumulative arousals may be more multiplicative rather than additive
due to the intensity of the combination (1989). Reisenzein further states that findings
can be explained by the Hull theory because when one arousal is heightened, all the
others are primed for increase (1983). Response theory only fits as an explanation,
however, when the participant is not aware that there are two separate arousals at work
(Allen et al., 1989). Hulls' theory also loses credence when applied to hunger arousal
(Petijohn, Ahmed & Pettijohn, 2012). The source of hunger arousal is a lower level
process and takes precedence over higher level arousals such as attraction (Pettijohn
et al., 2012). The Hull theory also does not work backwards. Somervill, Barrios, Merritt,
Higher & Moore showed that when participants are sexually aroused, then aroused by
an anxiety stimulus (holding a snake), neither the anxiety nor the sexual arousal are
increased (2012). Again, the lower level evolutionary fear of snakes likely took
precedence over the higher process of sexual arousal.
It's also possible that our study did not show significance due to the fact that we
asked participants to passively look at photographs and then simply record their
responses and mood. Most studies have participants performing some action, and the
action itself is more salient than just self-reporting (Reisenzein, 1983). Physical activity
Gender and Misattribution
such as exercise (Reisenzein, 1983) or betting at an auction (Ku et al., 2008) show
significant arousal, and future studies should have participants engaging in an activity
designed to elicit the desired arousal.
Gender differences of arousal are less studied and few reports show significant
misattribution. An exception is the roller coaster study by Meston & Frohlich in 2003.
Their results show that women did rate opposite gendered faces as more attractive after
riding a roller coaster vs. waiting in line for the roller coaster and that the women rated
the photo higher than the males rated an opposite gender face (pre-tested as the same
attraction level) (Meston & Frohlich, 2003). A possible confound in our study did not
eliminate or test for non-heterosexual participants. Further study should either eliminate
this data or ask the participant to indicate which gender they are attracted to and
analyze their data in the appropriate gendered group. It's also suggested that it's
possible the male/female differences are due to gender differences in perception;
women place more focus on contextual cues whereas males focus on the physiology
(Meston & Frohlich, 2003). An interesting explanation of their own study put forward by
Dutton & Aron hypothesize that there may be gender roles at play in that males may be
more motivated to misattribute fear or anxiety arousal to attraction arousal simply
because fear and anxiety for males (particularly in previous decades) was less socially
acceptable than sexual or attraction arousal (1989). Finally, an explanation for the
Dutton & Aron Bridge Study could be that under aversive conditions, humans and
animals look to one another for comfort and support to lessen their feelings of fear and
anxiety, therefore the bridge study participants may have found that negative
Gender and Misattribution
reinforcement was the paradigm at work, that is, the attractive researcher at the end of
the rickety bridge lessened some of their fear and anxiety (Allen et al., 1989).
There needs to be further investigation to determine the explanation of why we
misattribute arousal emotions and why there are sometimes gender differences. Our
research was unable to show enough support for any of the aforementioned theories
and unfortunately the explanation remains a mystery.
Gender and Misattribution
References
Allen, J. B., Kenrick, D. T., Linder, D. E., & McCall, M. A. (1989). Arousal and attraction:
a response-facilitation alternative to misattribution and negative-reinforcement
models. Journal of personality and social psychology, 57, 261-270.
Dutton, D. G., & Aron, A. P. (1974). Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction
under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of personality and social psychology, 30, 510517.
Dutton, D. G., & Aron, A. P. (1989). Romantic attraction and generalized liking for
others who are sources of conflict-based arousal. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science, 21, 246-257.
Ku, G., Galinsky, A. D. & Murnighan, J. K. (2008). Arousal, interest and auction
bidders. lACM 21st Annual Conference Paper. Retrieved April 5, 2013, available at
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1298572 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1298572
Meston, C. M., & Frohlich, P. F. (2003). Love at first fright: partner salience moderates
roller-coaster-induced excitation transfer. Archives of sexual behavior, 32, 537-544.
Pettijohn, T. F., Ahmed, S. F., & Pettijohn, T. F. (2012). Hunger and social motivation:
hungry people are less interested in social activities than satiated people. Current
Psychology, 31, 1-5.
Reisenzein, R. (1983). The schachter theory of emotion: two decades
later. Psycholgical Bulletin, 94, 239-264.
Somervill, J. W., Barrios, F. X., Merritt, B. R., Higher, L. M., & Moore, D. L. (1983).
Misattribution in a fearful situation following different modes of arousal. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 56, 45-46.
Ku, G., Galinsky, A. D. & Murnighan, J. K. (2008). Arousal, interest and auction
bidders. lACM 21st Annual Conference Paper. Retrieved April 5, 2013, available at
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1298572 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1298572