Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
PII: S0149-7634(16)30414-6
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.10.021
Reference: NBR 2639
To appear in:
Please cite this article as: Centurion Cabral, João Carlos, de Souza Tavares,
Patrice, de Almeida, Rosa Maria Martins, Reciprocal effects between dominance
and anger: A systematic review.Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.10.021
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
Reciprocal effects between dominance and anger: A systematic review
João Carlos Centurion Cabral a,*; Patrice de Souza Tavares b; and Rosa Maria
Martins de Almeida a
*Corresponding author:
João Carlos Centurion Cabral
Institute of Psychology – Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul
Postal address: 2600 Ramiro Barcelos st, - Porto Alegre – Zip Code: 90035-003
Rio Grande do Sul – Brazil.– Telephone: +55 53 3201-5844 – Fax: +55 51 3308-
5470
Electronic address: centurion.cabral@ufrgs.br
1
Highlights
ABSTRACT
Dominance and high status are directly associated with perception of angry
expressions. However, studies that have sought to empirically assess the causal
mechanisms between these construct are still relatively scarce. Moreover, several
variables can influence and be influenced by both anger and dominance, increasing
the complexity of synthesizing the findings related to the association between these
total of 207 potentially relevant publications were identified and screened. Of those, 20
articles were found eligible for detailed review, with 26 empirical studies. All reviewed
studies reported an association between dominance and anger. Social status and
dominance have a direct effect on the perception of anger. In turn, the perception of
anger has a consistent effect on attributions of dominance for those who express this
emotion. There are mutual effects between dominance and anger, which, if recurring
2
1. Introduction
Hostile interactions are critical for the survival of primates and other mammals (Buss,
2008; de Almeida et al., 2015; Honess and Marin, 2006). Dominance is an agonistic
behavior that has a direct impact on the organization of social groups and on
interpersonal relationships (Chiao, 2010; Johnson et al., 2012). This behavioral pattern
can be defined as a type of social relationship based on control of both the behavior of
al., 2009). Besides, dominance hierarchies determine the order of access to resources,
al., 2006; Drews, 1993; Kaufmann, 1983). In humans, dominance drive and pursuit of
high social status are conceptually similar to power motivation, i.e., control of valuable
resources (Anderson and Galinsky, 2006; Ridgeway and Diekema, 1989; Salvador,
2005). However, the social hierarchy is subject to change every time that dominance is
challenged by a subordinate (Arregi et al., 2006; Campbell, 1999; Marsh et al., 2009).
greater aggressiveness against the one who made the assault, either as a lower-
and dominance are frequently associated with the expression of some emotions in
humans, the relationship between these variables is not yet completely understood.
Dominance interaction does not only apply to physical aggression, since it also
includes the display of threats, as well as other strategies for conflict resolution
(Johnson et al., 2012; Ridgeway, 1987). Expressions of anger are often interpreted as
a threat signals (Coccaro et al., 2007; Hansen and Hansen, 1988; Hermans et al.,
2008; Hess et al., 2009; Öhman et al., 2001) and, in general terms, threat displays
exert a key role in establishing and maintaining the dominance hierarchy (Buss, 2008).
3
Anger is considered a basic emotion (Ekman, 1992; Izard, 2007) that can be broadly
defined as an emotional state that ranges from mild irritation to rage, often with a
feeling of hostility toward someone and an intent to cause damage (Berkowitz and
Harmon-Jones, 2004; Carver and Harmon-Jones, 2009; Frijda, 1986; Ramírez and
1996; Hess et al., 2009; Öhman et al., 2001; Tipples et al., 2002). In healthy persons,
action (Berkowitz and Harmon-Jones, 2004; Levine, 1996, 1995). Several cultural and
impulsivity and aggression (Archer and Webb, 2006; Buss and Perry, 1992; Hwang et
al., 2016; Sánchez-Martín et al., 2011). That is, angry individuals are more likely to
show aggressive behaviors, which, in turn, is also a decisive factor for dominance in
natural environment (Archer, 2006; Carré et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2007; Mazur and
Booth, 1998).
with dominance and power pursuit (Archer and Webb, 2006; Peterson and Harmon-
Jones, 2012; Sewards and Sewards, 2002; Shariff and Tracy, 2011). Regardless of
social status, people expressing anger are often perceived as more dominant than
when they express other emotions or are in neutral state (Archer and Webb, 2006;
Hareli et al., 2009; Knutson, 1996; Marsh et al., 2005; Tiedens, 2001; Tiedens et al.,
of prefrontal cortex (PFC) responsible for impulse control, such as orbitofrontal cortex
(OFC), ventromedial PFC (vmPFC), and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) (Beaver et al.,
2008; Coccaro et al., 2007; de Almeida et al., 2015). Autonomically, steroid hormones
can affect the expression of anger (Carver and Harmon-Jones, 2009; Peterson and
Harmon-Jones, 2012; van Honk et al., 1999; Wirth and Schultheiss, 2007), as well as
the occurrence of dominant and competitive behaviors (Mazur and Booth, 1998; Mehta
et al., 2008). Even though the effects of dominance and anger are well known to affect
groups, yet many of their natural and emotional determinants are not completely
variables can influence and be influenced by both anger and dominance. Thus, the
understand these patterns of agonistic behaviors, becomes evident. With this in mind,
dominance and anger. Therefore, this review sought to answer four questions: I) Is
there a relationship between dominance and anger? II) Does dominance have a direct
effect on anger? III) Does anger have a direct effect on dominance? IV) What are the
environmental and biological factors that determine the relationship between these
variables? Given the multifactorial nature of the variables, this review focuses on data
from adult and healthy human participants. It was expected that, due to this control of
the variables, such data could enable a more concise and productive discussion on the
November 2015: Scopus, Web of Science, PsycNET (APA), PubMed (Medline), and
Scielo.org (Scientific Electronic Library Online). Articles published between 1990 and
November 2014 were sampled using the following search strategy: ((anger
procedure to assess their adequacy based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well
simultaneously and independently carried out by two reviewers previously trained for
the task. The following items were used as inclusion criteria: (1) type of publication –
peer reviewed articles based on empirical research and published in scientific journals;
(2) aim of the study – the main objectives, or at least the secondary objectives, should
be related to dominance and anger; (3) subjects – postpubertal healthy humans; (4)
period of publication - articles published from 1990 to 2015; and (5) language - articles
review were excluded by the following criteria: (1) clinical variables – studies focusing
social discrimination.
6
Ultimately, 20 articles were reviewed and the concordance rate between
reviewers was 91.4%, calculated after exclusion of duplicated articles (Figure 1). In the
articles were organized by author, publication year, sample size, methods and design
publications met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, as illustrated in Figure 1. These
the relationship between human dominance behavior and anger. Most publications
reported only one study, however, seven publications reported two or three
experiments with different objectives. Any experiments that did not investigate the
relationship between dominance and anger were excluded from this review. In total,
these 26 studies assessed 5,032 healthy adults, from different countries and distinct
conducted with mixed-gender samples, while only two studies were carried out with
exclusively male samples and one with exclusively female samples. Studies were
highlighting the current need to understand the causal mechanisms of the relationship
the last 10 years. No study from before 2000 was identified by the search strategy and
7
All reviewed studies revealed an association between dominance and anger, and
almost all reported a positive relationship, at least for one measured variable. Thus, it
behavior and anger. Nevertheless, contradictory findings were also seen in these
anger for a specific gender, especially females, or for some specific ethnic group or
expressions, however, the authors have found such an association for salivary
marker linked to dominant behavior (Mazur and Booth, 1998; Terburg et al., 2009; van
Honk et al., 2010). Besides, cross-cultural research has found a negative correlation
status (Park et al., 2013), and this was the only paper to report a negative relationship
between the variables in reviewed articles. On the other hand, Westhuizen and Solms
(2015) showed a positive association of anger with dominance, despite discussing the
ultimately, has an adaptive effect of stabilizing the social group and its internal
conflicts. For these authors, the involvement of anger in this process of social
Although there is a need for further clarification of this relationship and for
that dominance and anger are associated, likely through a positive relationship. Since
8
both dimensions (dominance-submission and agonistic emotions, i.e., anger–fear)
worth noting that the association between dominance and anger can exert a major role
conditions, and seven out of these nine focused specifically on social and/or
anger. Within the experimental research, almost 90% of studies (eight studies) focused
Individuals of high social status or dominance traits are perceived as being more
likely to express anger in negative contexts (Tiedens et al., 2000) and as having
greater intensity in their expressions of anger (Hess et al., 2004). Furthermore, the
perception of time for expressions of anger (stimulus dwell time) are also biased by the
Ratcliff, Franklin, Nelson, and Vescio (2012) perceived angry expressions to appear
sooner and persist longer on faces of high-status people compared to low-status faces.
In other words, there is considerable attentional bias for facial expressions of anger,
resulting from the social status of the observed individual. According to the authors
(Ratcliff et al., 2012b), anger strongly signals threat in social contexts, and high-status,
and therefore more powerful, people are more likely and more free to act on their
intentions and goals than low-status people. In this sense, anger expression would be
9
physical evidence of intent to cause harm (i.e., a sign of a feeling of hostility) and, in
turn, high-status would be a clue to the increased capacity and likelihood to act, which
could lead to the occurrence of direct aggression or coercive behavior (de Almeida et
high social status positions. It is socially expected that high-status people feel more
anger in adverse situations (and pride in positive situations) than sadness or fear
(Ratcliff et al., 2012a; Tiedens, 2001; Tiedens et al., 2000). Thus, such social
Stereotypes may play a prominent role, especially by attributing increased ability and
competence in performing tasks to angry individuals, attributions that are also usually
conferred to people with high-status and power (Tiedens et al., 2000). Both
explanations, i.e. the propensity to violent and coercive behaviors, as well as the
attributions of increased ability and competence, for dominant individuals who express
anger can be a mechanism to help to stabilize the group hierarchy. It would occur to
individuals. Indeed, expectations related to the social roles and power can be relevant
Carr, Winkielman, and Oveis (2014) conducted an experiment that induced dominance
the corrugator supercilii (for anger facial expression) and zygomaticus major (for
result, the participants responded to the expressions of anger with increased activity of
10
measures. In this study, participants also showed higher corrugator activity in response
assigned to high-power group did not mimic high status targets’ smiles, and curiously,
they showed incongruent smiling responses when there were high-status targets
expressing anger. This may be related to social expectation differences of people who
are at different power levels. Certainly, the implicit attributions made by a non-
different from an attribution made when both are dominant or subordinate. Therefore,
aggression and attribution of increased ability) can be significantly reduced when there
is a balance in dominance levels between perceiver and perceived (Carr et al., 2014;
van der Ham et al., 2014; Wilkowski and Meier, 2010). Even the aforementioned
and Tracy, 2011, 2009), though this incongruity can equally be interpreted as a sign of
mimicry of another person’s behavior does not necessarily imply ignoring the
opponent’s emotional expressions. In fact, Hofman, Terburg, van Wielink and Schutter
(2013) found a linear relation between dominance motivation and attentional bias for
facial expression of anger. The group with high levels of dominance had greater
attentional bias for anger expressions, which may mean that the dominance motivation
causes an increased behavioral vigilance towards facial anger cues (Hofman et al.,
11
2013). Under these circumstances, we can assume that social status and dominance
are key features of social life that have a direct effect on the perception of anger.
However, more studies are required for understanding the role of dominance on other
visual stimuli (e.g., pictures, videos, and virtual simulations), and almost all studies
Only one correlational study discussed the possible effects of personal experience of
perception of dominance.
who express this emotion (e.g., Brescoll and Uhlmann, 2008; Hareli et al., 2015;
Hortensius et al., 2014; Terburg et al., 2012a, 2012b, 2011; Tiedens et al., 2000; van
der Ham et al., 2014; van Honk et al., 2000). Subjects expressing anger are perceived
as more dominant or having higher status (Brescoll and Uhlmann, 2008; Flowe, 2012;
Hareli et al., 2015, 2009; Terburg et al., 2011; Tiedens et al., 2000; van der Ham et al.,
inconsistent findings when comparing the effects of anger with emotionally neutral
expressions. The most contrasting results are often seen when comparing the effects
of anger with fear and sadness expressions (e.g., Hareli et al., 2015, 2009; Marsh et
al., 2005; van der Ham et al., 2014; Wilkowski and Meier, 2010). Likewise, some
by their peers, as well as being attributed higher social status (Brescoll and Uhlmann,
2008), at least in a professional context (Hareli et al., 2009). In other words, facial
On the other hand, supporting the role of anger on dominance, angry facial
exposed to such stimuli (Hofman et al., 2013; Hortensius et al., 2014; Terburg et al.,
2011), at least for people with a high level of dominance motivation (Hofman et al.,
2013; Terburg et al., 2012a, 2011). Accordingly, dominant subjects show decreased
gaze aversion from angry expressions. This pattern has even been seen for masked
stimuli (which were presented faster than necessary to be consciously perceived) (e.g.,
Hortensius et al., 2014; Terburg et al., 2012a, 2011; van Honk et al., 2000). Enduring
automatic and non-conscious adaptive mechanism (Terburg et al., 2012a; van Honk et
al., 2000). Just as in humans, other mammals with complex social behaviors establish
and maintain social hierarchy through direct and sustained eye contact (Chiao, 2010;
Drews, 1993; Mazur and Booth, 1998). In primates, the dominance hierarchy is
primarily established when the animals stare directly and fixedly at each other,
generally also involving other threat signals, until one animal looks away, signaling
submission, thereby avoiding possible injuries resulting from direct physical conflict (de
Some lines of research have sustained the notion that the angry facial
expression can serve as a sign of threat in the context of conflict for hierarchy (Mazur
and Booth, 1998; Mellentin et al., 2015; Öhman et al., 2001; Terburg et al., 2012a,
13
2011; Tipples et al., 2002). Once again, this indirect association between anger and
dominance could have their causal mechanisms related to attribution bias for those
personal skills. According to Sell, Comides, and Tooby (2014), anger expression can
would increase the bargaining power of the anger expresser. During a conflict, such
cues would make the opponent perceive better conditions to fight in one who express
anger. A similar hypothesis was formulated and tested by Tiedens and colleagues
(2000). They affirmed that mutual perceptual effects between anger and dominance
might be explained by the assumptions (i.e., attributions) made by an observer, that is,
angry people and people who have high social position are seen as having higher
skills and abilities. Thus, it is clear that anger has causal effects on dominance
behavior, but this statement can only be sustained for perceptual and attentional
levels. There are no studies that have tested if feelings of anger, or their physiological
Cultural, personal and physiological differences can be decisive for the occurrence of
this reciprocal effect between dominance and anger. Understanding the cultural
depending on the cultural norms of a country (McLinton and Dollard, 2014), but these
can also alter the causal pattern of dominance and anger (Park et al., 2013). A large
correlational study found, by comparing the relationship of anger with social status
among Japanese and Australian workers, that anger against superiors is significantly
14
attenuated in the Japanese population (McLinton and Dollard, 2014). This pattern was
not seen among Australians. These authors advocated the notion that the cultural
highest levels of anger, in both Japanese and Australian populations, were against
findings reviewed here, although it does not ignore that there are cultural differences
for expression of anger and dominance. Another cultural aspect that may have direct
way to relieve frustration (Park et al., 2013). On the other hand, collectivistic cultures
demonstrate authority (Park et al., 2013). Further, there are certain cultural norms in
some Asian countries against angry expressions, especially for low status people
(Park et al., 2013), which can directly affect the interaction between dominance and
anger.
Gender and physical features can also have moderating effects on the
relationship between dominance and anger. Women are perceived as less dominant
than men when both express anger (Hareli et al., 2009; Hess et al., 2004; Watkins et
al., 2013). Male expression of anger can lead to an increase in perceived status for
those who express it. However, for women expressing anger, the effect may be the
opposite, being conferred lower status and being perceived as less competent
(Brescoll and Uhlmann, 2008). Brescoll and Uhlman (2008) have argued that this is
due to an attribution bias: angry females were seen as internally motivated, i.e., the
explanation for this emotion was based on personal characteristics and personality.
For angry males, attribution was usually external and contextualized. Nonetheless,
15
when the anger expressed by women had an external explanation experimentally
faces are perceived as more dominant (Hess et al., 2004; Watkins et al., 2013).
are consistently associated with the expression of anger and dominance motivation
(Archer, 2006; de Almeida et al., 2015; Mazur and Booth, 1998; Peterson and Harmon-
Jones, 2012; Sewards and Sewards, 2003; van Honk et al., 1999; Wirth and
Schultheiss, 2007), although these results are often not successfully replicated in
women (Cashdan, 2003; Schultheiss et al., 2004; Stanton et al., 2009; Stanton and
testosterone are positively associated with attentional bias to angry facial expressions
(Terburg et al., 2012a; van Honk et al., 1999), and exogenous administration of
testosterone can enhance cardiac responses to such facial expressions (van Honk et
al., 2001). Testosterone is a steroid hormone essential for promoting and maintaining
dominant behavior in several vertebrate species (Archer, 2006; Mazur and Booth,
1998; Montoya et al., 2012). In contrast, low levels of cortisol are correlated with
agonistic behavior patterns (Terburg et al., 2009; van Honk et al., 2010). Cortisol is the
main glucocorticoid hormone in humans, and its sustained high levels can suppress
gonadal function and the synthesis of androgenic steroids (Charmandari et al., 2005;
McEwen, 2007). Thus, the combination of low levels of cortisol with high levels of
dominance (van Honk et al., 2010). This pattern also matches the hormonal pattern
16
associated with dominant behavior, known as winner effect, i.e., an increase in
competition (Holekamp and Strauss, 2016). Another steroid hormone, estradiol, which
is considered the main female sex hormone, similarly has a significant impact on the
(Gasbarri et al., 2012; Montgomery et al., 1987; Stanton and Edelstein, 2009; Stanton
and Schultheiss, 2007). Stanton and Schultheiss (2009) argue that estradiol, and not
(Ziomkiewicz et al., 2015), and higher levels of estradiol produce less competitive
testosterone to estradiol (Cover et al., 2014) should also be highlighted, since this may
have a relevant function for expression of agonistic behaviors in men too (Unger et al.,
2015). However, there is a need for further studies to investigate a possible sexual
dimorphism for expression of anger and dominance in humans, assessing the effects
of sex hormones and their relations with neurobiological findings regarding agonistic
behaviors.
Indeed, such endocrine profiles are highly correlated with the activation of
subcortical and cortical structures, such as the amygdala (de Almeida et al., 2015;
Hermans et al., 2008; Hofman et al., 2013), a structure responsible for emotional
reactions, including anger (Davis and Whalen, 2001), and the PFC (van Honk et al.,
2010), responsible for impulse control, planning and decision-making, among other
executive functions (Anderson et al., 2006; Miller and Cohen, 2001), respectively.
Clinical and experimental data indicate that the amygdala performs a prominent
function in both recognition and experience of anger, being its medial nucleus primarily
17
relevant for this emotion (Derntl et al., 2009; Öhman et al., 2001; Phillips et al., 2003;
Potegal et al., 2010; Whalen et al., 2001). Similarly, the activation of the amygdala is
(Chiao, 2010; Zink et al., 2008). Moreover, the PFC activation pattern for high status
cues is similar to the pattern seen for facial expression of anger, mainly in the
ventrolateral PFC (Marsh et al., 2009). Medial, dorsolateral and vmPFC, as well as
anterior and posterior cingulate cortex, are implicated in the perception of dominant
and superior status in a hierarchy (Chiao, 2010; Chiao et al., 2009; Marsh et al., 2009;
Zink et al., 2008). Such PFC regions are also involved with the perception of anger
(Beaver et al., 2008; Bediou et al., 2009; Coccaro et al., 2007; Pawliczek et al., 2013).
impulses (Lotze et al., 2007). Going beyond a perceptual level, the experiences of
anger and dominance provoke an increased OFC activity (Bechara et al., 2000; van
Honk et al., 2014). This activation pattern can be explained by social norms, since the
For instance, there is a decrease in OFC activity when there are unfair offers in the
ultimatum game, which is an economic game associated with both anger expression
These patterns are also common in aggressive behavior in human and nonhuman
PFC (de Almeida et al., 2015). Such impaired inhibitory function of PFC and enhanced
amygdala activity is related with high levels of testosterone and low levels of cortisol.
Additionally, the amygdala and PFC are reciprocally connected (Price, 2003;
Stefanacci and Amaral, 2002), and this connectivity can also be influenced by sex
steroids (van Wingen et al., 2011). Testosterone increases the neural activity in the
18
amygdala (Derntl et al., 2009; Manuck et al., 2010; van Wingen et al., 2009) and
hinders its connectivity with PFC (Bos et al., 2012; van Wingen et al., 2010). On the
other hand, cortisol has a negative correlation with amygdala activation (Henckens et
al., 2010) and estradiol seems to enhance the connectivity between the PFC and
amygdala (Peper et al., 2011; Zeidan et al., 2011). Thus, ovarian hormones, such as
estradiol and progesterone, in low levels and in intermediate levels, respectively, can
impair the functioning of these brain regions (Cover et al., 2014). Additionally, steroid
hormones may also impair communication within serotonergic pathways (Martel et al.,
2009).
implicated low serotonin (5-HT) levels in agonistic behavior patterns and violence,
regardless of gender (Higley et al., 1996; Moore et al., 2002; Oades et al., 2008; Soloff
et al., 2003), since 5-HT can inhibit aggression in many species (Holekamp and
with such behavioral patterns (Olivier and van Oorschot, 2005; van der Vegt et al.,
2003), including anger (Coccaro et al., 2015; Coccaro and Lee, 2010; Duke et al.,
2013; Suarez and Krishnan, 2006) and dominance (Krakowski, 2003; Larson and
Summers, 2001; Raleigh et al., 1991). The 5-HT1A receptors are distributed in several
brain regions, such as PFC and amygdala (Olivier and van Oorschot, 2005). This
receptor is abundantly expressed in the cingulate cortex and PFC, including vmPFC,
OFC and ACC (Albert et al., 2014; Paus, 2001; Witte et al., 2009), and its activation
inhibits the activity of target neurons (Albert et al., 2014). Thus, both low 5-HT levels
and postsynaptic 5-HT1A receptor agonist can enhance aggressive and impulsive
reactions (de Almeida et al., 2015). Furthermore, several studies have shown an
interaction between 5-HT and steroid hormones (Bonson et al., 1994; Miller et al.,
19
2012; Pinna et al., 2008; Witte et al., 2009). Testosterone, estrogen and cortisol can
modulate 5-HT function, altering density and distribution of 5-HT receptors and 5-HT
levels in the brain, as well as reducing tryptophan (Cowen, 2002; Kuepper et al.,
2010). It has been found that variations in the levels of sex hormones during menstrual
cycles can then change the distribution of 5-HT1A receptors (Witte et al., 2009).
need more studies to be undertaken in order to achieve further clarity, bearing in mind
the possible effects of upregulation and downregulation of 5-HT receptors, and their
interactions with steroid hormones. Moreover, these future studies may have to take
into account the differences between dominance behavior and dominance drive, as
well as the differences between anger expression and feeling of anger. Naturally these
explicit versions (behaviors) may have higher levels of prefrontal activity, given the
Finally, the brain activity linked to dominance and anger also depends on its types
and categorizations, since reactive (or explosive) aggression follows a similar pattern
seen for anger experience, unlike the pattern seen for proactive (or instrumental)
(higher amygdala activity and lower impulse control areas activity), proactive
that there is a great demand of action planning for these behaviors (de Almeida et al.,
2015). In turn, the neural effects of different possible types of dominance, e.g.,
Noë et al., 1980), and their associations with anger, need to be empirically assessed in
20
4. Conclusions
In sum, dominance and anger have mutual effects, possibly with a positive feedback
effect between these variables will allow the development of a broader framework
about how to define social relations of hostility and power in human groups. Reciprocal
causal relationship between anger and dominance, being recurrent and positively fed
structure in social groups. That is, the expression of anger is perceived as more
dominant, and dominant individuals are perceived as more angry in adverse contexts.
This feedback could inhibit the challenge behavior (of subordinate individuals) to the
Reciprocal perceptual effects of anger and dominance may mean that this relationship
and privileged access to resources. Although, given the absence of studies that have
whether the personal feeling of anger induces dominance motivation and vice-versa),
we cannot state with certainty that the relation between dominance and anger occurs
only at a perceptual level, since both variables are predispositions to act in a certain
way. Functionally, the main action of these variables is not in perception, but, rather, in
both being patterns of agonistic behavior. Therefore, further studies are needed to test
21
mechanisms and several environmental factors that can influence or be influenced by
Acknowledgments
References
Albert, P.R., Vahid-Ansari, F., Luckhart, C., 2014. Serotonin-prefrontal cortical circuitry
in anxiety and depression phenotypes: pivotal role of pre- and post-synaptic 5-
HT1A receptor expression. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 8, 199.
doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00199
Anderson, C., Galinsky, A.D., 2006. Power, optimism, and risk-taking. Eur. J. Soc.
Psychol. 36, 511–536. doi:10.1002/ejsp.324
Anderson, S.W., Barrash, J., Bechara, A., Tranel, D., 2006. Impairments of emotion
and real-world complex behavior following childhood- or adult-onset damage to
ventromedial prefrontal cortex. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 12, 224–235.
doi:10.1017/S1355617706060346
Archer, J., 2006. Testosterone and human aggression: an evaluation of the challenge
hypothesis. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 30, 319–345.
doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.12.007
Archer, J., Webb, I.A., 2006. The relation between scores on the Buss–Perry
Aggression Questionnaire and aggressive acts, impulsiveness, competitiveness,
dominance, and sexual jealousy. Aggress. Behav. 32, 464–473.
doi:10.1002/ab.20146
22
Arregi, A., Azpiroz, A., Fano, E., Garmendia, L., 2006. Aggressive behavior:
Implications of dominance and subordination for the study of mental disorders.
Aggress. Violent Behav. 11, 394–413. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2006.01.005
Beaver, J.D., Lawrence, A.D., Passamonti, L., Calder, A.J., 2008. Appetitive Motivation
Predicts the Neural Response to Facial Signals of Aggression. J. Neurosci. 28,
2719–2725. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0033-08.2008
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Damasio, A.R., 2000. Emotion, decision making and the
orbitofrontal cortex. Cereb. cortex 10, 295–307. doi:10.1093/cercor/10.3.295
Bediou, B., Eimer, M., d’Amato, T., Hauk, O., Calder, A.J., 2009. In the eye of the
beholder: Individual differences in reward-drive modulate early frontocentral ERPs
to angry faces. Neuropsychologia 47, 825–834.
doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.12.012
Bonson, K.R., Johnson, R.G., Fiorella, D., Rabin, R.A., Winter, J.C., 1994.
Serotonergic control of androgen-induced dominance. Pharmacol. Biochem.
Behav. 49, 313–322. doi:10.1016/0091-3057(94)90427-8
Borkowska, B., Pawlowski, B., 2011. Female voice frequency in the context of
dominance and attractiveness perception. Anim. Behav. 82, 55–59.
doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.03.024
Bos, P.A., Hermans, E.J., Ramsey, N.F., van Honk, J., 2012. The neural mechanisms
by which testosterone acts on interpersonal trust. Neuroimage 61, 730–737.
doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.002
Brescoll, V.L., Uhlmann, E.L., 2008. Can an angry woman get ahead? Psychol. Sci.
19, 268–275. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02079.x
Buss, A., Perry, M., 1992. The aggression questionnaire. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 63,
452–9.
Buss, D., 2008. Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Allyn & Bacon,
Boston.
23
Campbell, A., 1999. Staying alive: Evolution, culture, and women’s intrasexual
aggression. Behav. Brain Sci. 22, 203–252. doi:10.1017/S0140525X99001818
Carr, E.W., Winkielman, P., Oveis, C., 2014. Transforming the mirror: Power
fundamentally changes facial responding to emotional expressions. J. Exp.
Psychol. Gen. 143, 997–1003. doi:10.1037/a0034972
Carré, J.M., Campbell, J.A., Lozoya, E., Goetz, S.M.M., Welker, K.M., 2013. Changes
in testosterone mediate the effect of winning on subsequent aggressive behaviour.
Psychoneuroendocrinology 38, 2034–2041. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2013.03.008
Cashdan, E., 2003. Hormones and competitive aggression in women. Aggress. Behav.
29, 107–115. doi:10.1002/ab.10041
Charmandari, E., Tsigos, C., Chrousos, G., 2005. Endocrinology of the stress
response. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 67, 259–284.
doi:10.1146/annurev.physiol.67.040403.120816
Chiao, J.Y., 2010. Neural basis of social status hierarchy across species. Curr. Opin.
Neurobiol. 20, 803–809. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2010.08.006
Chiao, J.Y., Harada, T., Oby, E.R., Li, Z., Parrish, T., Bridge, D.J., 2009. Neural
representations of social status hierarchy in human inferior parietal cortex.
Neuropsychologia 47, 354–363. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.09.023
Coccaro, E.F., Fanning, J.R., Phan, K.L., Lee, R., 2015. Serotonin and impulsive
aggression. CNS Spectr. 20, 295–302. doi:10.1017/S1092852915000310
Coccaro, E.F., Lee, R., 2010. Cerebrospinal fluid 5-hydroxyindolacetic acid and
homovanillic acid: reciprocal relationships with impulsive aggression in human
subjects. J. Neural Transm. 117, 241–248. doi:10.1007/s00702-009-0359-x
Coccaro, E.F., McCloskey, M.S., Fitzgerald, D.A., Phan, K.L., 2007. Amygdala and
orbitofrontal reactivity to social threat in individuals with impulsive aggression. Biol.
Psychiatry 62, 168–178. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.08.024
Cover, K.K., Maeng, L.Y., Lebrón-Milad, K., Milad, M.R., 2014. Mechanisms of
24
estradiol in fear circuitry: implications for sex differences in psychopathology.
Transl. Psychiatry 4, e422. doi:10.1038/tp.2014.67
Cowen, P.J., 2002. Cortisol, serotonin and depression: all stressed out? Br. J.
Psychiatry 180, 99–100. doi:10.1192/bjp.180.2.99
Davis, M., Whalen, P.J., 2001. The amygdala: vigilance and emotion. Mol. Psychiatry
6, 13–34.
de Almeida, R.M.M., Cabral, J.C.C., Narvaes, R., 2015. Behavioural, hormonal and
neurobiological mechanisms of aggressive behaviour in human and nonhuman
primates. Physiol. Behav. 143, 121–135. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.02.053
Deffenbacher, J.L., Oetting, E.R., Lynch, R.S., Morris, C.D., 1996. The expression of
anger and its consequences. Behav. Res. Ther. 34, 575–590. doi:10.1016/0005-
7967(96)00018-6
Derntl, B., Windischberger, C., Robinson, S., Kryspin-Exner, I., Gur, R.C., Moser, E.,
Habel, U., 2009. Amygdala activity to fear and anger in healthy young males is
associated with testosterone. Psychoneuroendocrinology 34, 687–693.
doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.11.007
Drews, C., 1993. The Concept and Definition of Dominance in Animal Behaviour.
Behaviour 125, 283–313. doi:10.1163/156853993X00290
Duke, A.A., Bègue, L., Bell, R., Eisenlohr-Moul, T., 2013. Revisiting the serotonin–
aggression relation in humans: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 139, 1148–1172.
doi:10.1037/a0031544
Ekman, P., 1992. Are there basic emotions? Psychol. Rev. 99, 550–3.
Gasbarri, A., Tavares, M.C.H., Rodrigues, R.C., Tomaz, C., Pompili, A., 2012.
Estrogen, cognitive functions and emotion: an overview on humans, non-human
primates and rodents in reproductive years. Rev. Neurosci. 23, 587–606.
25
doi:10.1515/revneuro-2012-0051
Hansen, C.H., Hansen, R.D., 1988. Finding the face in the crowd: an anger superiority
effect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54, 917–24.
Hareli, S., David, S., Hess, U., 2015. The role of emotion transition for the perception
of social dominance and affiliation. Cogn. Emot. 1–11.
doi:10.1080/02699931.2015.1056107
Hareli, S., Shomrat, N., Hess, U., 2009. Emotional versus neutral expressions and
perceptions of social dominance and submissiveness. Emotion 9, 378–384.
doi:10.1037/a0015958
Henckens, M.J.A.G., van Wingen, G.A., Joëls, M., Fernández, G., 2010. Time-
dependent effects of corticosteroids on human amygdala processing. J. Neurosci.
30, 12725–12732. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3112-10.2010
Hermans, E.J., Ramsey, N.F., van Honk, J., 2008. Exogenous testosterone enhances
responsiveness to social threat in the neural circuitry of social aggression in
humans. Biol. Psychiatry 63, 263–70. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.05.013
Hess, U., Adams, R.B.. J., Kleck, R.E., 2004. Facial Appearance, Gender, and
Emotion Expression. Emotion 4, 378–388. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.4.4.378
Hess, U., Adams, R.B., Grammer, K., Kleck, R.E., 2009. Face gender and emotion
expression: Are angry women more like men? J. Vis. 9, 1–8. doi:10.1167/9.12.19
Higley, J.D., Mehlman, P.T., Poland, R.E., Taub, D.M., Vickers, J., Suomi, S.J.,
Linnoila, M., 1996. CSF testosterone and 5-HIAA correlate with different types of
aggressive behaviors. Biol. Psychiatry 40, 1067–1082. doi:10.1016/S0006-
3223(95)00675-3
Hofman, D., Terburg, D., van Wielink, L., Schutter, D.J.L.G., 2013. Coalescence of
dominance motivation and responses to facial anger in resting-state and event-
related electrophysiology. Neuroimage 79, 138–44.
doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.088
26
Honess, P.E., Marin, C.M., 2006. Behavioural and physiological aspects of stress and
aggression in nonhuman primates. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 30, 390–412.
doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.04.003
Hortensius, R., Van Honk, J., De Gelder, B., Terburg, D., 2014. Trait dominance
promotes reflexive staring at masked angry body postures. PLoS One 9, 1–11.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0116232
Hwang, J.Y., Kang, S.-G., Gwak, A.R., Park, J., Lee, Y.J., 2016. The associations of
morningness–eveningness with anger and impulsivity in the general population.
Chronobiol. Int. 1–10. doi:10.3109/07420528.2015.1128947
Izard, C.E., 2007. Basic Emotions, Natural Kinds, Emotion Schemas, and a New
Paradigm. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2, 260–280. doi:10.1111/j.1745-
6916.2007.00044.x
Johnson, R.T., Burk, J.A., Kirkpatrick, L.A., 2007. Dominance and prestige as
differential predictors of aggression and testosterone levels in men. Evol. Hum.
Behav. 28, 345–351. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.04.003
Johnson, S.L., Leedom, L.J., Muhtadie, L., 2012. The dominance behavioral system
and psychopathology: evidence from self-report, observational, and biological
studies. Psychol. Bull. 138, 692–743. doi:10.1037/a0027503
Kaufmann, J.H., 1983. On the definitions and functions of dominance and territoriality.
Biol. Rev. 58, 1–20. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1983.tb00379.x
Krakowski, M., 2003. Violence and Serotonin: Influence of Impulse Control, Affect
Regulation, and Social Functioning. J. Neuropsychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 15, 294–
305. doi:10.1176/appi.neuropsych.15.3.294
Kuepper, Y., Alexander, N., Osinsky, R., Mueller, E., Schmitz, A., Netter, P., Hennig,
J., 2010. Aggression—Interactions of serotonin and testosterone in healthy men
and women. Behav. Brain Res. 206, 93–100. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2009.09.006
Larson, E.T., Summers, C.H., 2001. Serotonin reverses dominant social status. Behav.
27
Brain Res. 121, 95–102. doi:10.1016/S0166-4328(00)00393-4
Levine, L.J., 1995. Young children’s understanding of the causes of anger and
sadness. Child Dev. 66, 697–709.
Lotze, M., Veit, R., Anders, S., Birbaumer, N., 2007. Evidence for a different role of the
ventral and dorsal medial prefrontal cortex for social reactive aggression: An
interactive fMRI study. Neuroimage 34, 470–478.
doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.09.028
Manuck, S.B., Marsland, A.L., Flory, J.D., Gorka, A., Ferrell, R.E., Hariri, A.R., 2010.
Salivary testosterone and a trinucleotide (CAG) length polymorphism in the
androgen receptor gene predict amygdala reactivity in men.
Psychoneuroendocrinology 35, 94–104. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2009.04.013
Marsh, A.A., Ambady, N., Kleck, R.E., 2005. The Effects of Fear and Anger Facial
Expressions on Approach- and Avoidance-Related Behaviors. Emotion 5, 119–
124. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.119
Marsh, A.A., Blair, K.S., Jones, M.M., Soliman, N., Blair, R.J.R., 2009. Dominance and
Submission: The Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex and Responses to Status Cues.
J. Cogn. Neurosci. 21, 713–724. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21052
Martel, M.M., Klump, K., Nigg, J.T., Breedlove, S.M., Sisk, C.L., 2009. Potential
hormonal mechanisms of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Major
Depressive Disorder: A new perspective. Horm. Behav. 55, 465–479.
doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2009.02.004
Mazur, A., Booth, A., 1998. Testosterone and dominance in men. Behav. Brain Sci. 21,
353–397. doi:10.1017/S0140525X98001228
McEwen, B.S., 2007. Physiology and neurobiology of stress and adaptation: central
role of the brain. Physiol. Rev. 87, 873–904. doi:10.1152/physrev.00041.2006
28
Predispositions to Anger: Looking at Targets of Interpersonal Anger in the
Workplace, in: Psychosocial Factors at Work in the Asia Pacific. Springer
Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 201–215. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8975-2_10
Mehta, P.H., Jones, A.C., Josephs, R.A., 2008. The social endocrinology of
dominance: basal testosterone predicts cortisol changes and behavior following
victory and defeat. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94, 1078–1093. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.94.6.1078
Mellentin, A.I., Dervisevic, A., Stenager, E., Pilegaard, M., Kirk, U., 2015. Seeing
enemies? A systematic review of anger bias in the perception of facial
expressions among anger-prone and aggressive populations. Aggress. Violent
Behav. 25, 373–383. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2015.09.001
Miller, E.K., Cohen, J.D., 2001. An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function.
Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 24, 167–202. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167
Miller, R., Wankerl, M., Stalder, T., Kirschbaum, C., Alexander, N., 2012. The serotonin
transporter gene-linked polymorphic region (5-HTTLPR) and cortisol stress
reactivity: a meta-analysis. Mol. Psychiatry 18, 1018–1024.
doi:10.1038/mp.2012.124
Montgomery, J.C., Brincat, M., Tapp, A., Appleby, L., Versi, E., Fenwick, P.B.C.,
Studd, J.W.W., 1987. Effect pf oestrogen and testosterone implants on
psychological disorders in the climacteric. Lancet 329, 297–299.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(87)92026-5
Montoya, E.R., Terburg, D., Bos, P.A., van Honk, J., 2012. Testosterone, cortisol, and
serotonin as key regulators of social aggression: A review and theoretical
perspective. Motiv. Emot. 36, 65–73. doi:10.1007/s11031-011-9264-3
Moore, T.M., Scarpa, A., Raine, A., 2002. A meta-analysis of serotonin metabolite 5-
HIAA and antisocial behavior. Aggress. Behav. 28, 299–316.
doi:10.1002/ab.90027
29
Noë, R., de Waal, F.B.M., van Hooff, J.A.R.A.M., 1980. Types of Dominance in a
Chimpanzee Colony. Folia Primatol. 34, 90–110. doi:10.1159/000155949
Öhman, A., Lundqvist, D., Esteves, F., 2001. The face in the crowd revisited: a threat
advantage with schematic stimuli. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80, 381–96.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.381
Olivier, B., van Oorschot, R., 2005. 5-HT1B receptors and aggression: a review. Eur. J.
Pharmacol. 526, 207–217. doi:10.1016/j.ejphar.2005.09.066
Park, J., Kitayama, S., Markus, H.R., Coe, C.L., Miyamoto, Y., Karasawa, M., Curhan,
K.B., Love, G.D., Kawakami, N., Boylan, J.M., Ryff, C.D., 2013. Social status and
anger expression: The cultural moderation hypothesis. Emotion 13, 1122–1131.
doi:10.1037/a0034273
Paus, T., 2001. Primate anterior cingulate cortex: where motor control, drive and
cognition interface. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2, 417–424. doi:10.1038/35077500
Pawliczek, C.M., Derntl, B., Kellermann, T., Kohn, N., Gur, R.C., Habel, U., 2013.
Inhibitory control and trait aggression: neural and behavioral insights using the
emotional stop signal task. Neuroimage 79, 264–274.
doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.104
Peper, J.S., van den Heuvel, M.P., Mandl, R.C.W., Pol, H.E.H., van Honk, J., 2011.
Sex steroids and connectivity in the human brain: A review of neuroimaging
studies. Psychoneuroendocrinology 36, 1101–1113.
doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2011.05.004
Peterson, C.K., Harmon-Jones, E., 2012. Anger and testosterone: evidence that
30
situationally-induced anger relates to situationally-induced testosterone. Emotion
12, 899–902. doi:10.1037/a0025300
Phillips, M.L., Drevets, W.C., Rauch, S.L., Lane, R., 2003. Neurobiology of emotion
perception I: the neural basis of normal emotion perception. Biol. Psychiatry 54,
504–514. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(03)00168-9
Pinna, G., Agis-Balboa, R.C., Pibiri, F., Nelson, M., Guidotti, A., Costa, E., 2008.
Neurosteroid biosynthesis regulates sexually dimorphic fear and aggressive
behavior in mice. Neurochem. Res. 33, 1990–2007. doi:10.1007/s11064-008-
9718-5
Potegal, M., Stemmler, G., Spielberger, C., 2010. International Handbook of Anger,
International Handbook of Anger. Springer New York, New York, NY.
doi:10.1007/978-0-387-89676-2
Price, J.L., 2003. Comparative aspects of amygdala connectivity. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.
985, 50–58.
Raleigh, M.J., McGuire, M.T., Brammer, G.L., Pollack, D.B., Yuwiler, A., 1991.
Serotonergic mechanisms promote dominance acquisition in adult male vervet
monkeys. Brain Res. 559, 181–190. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(91)90001-C
Ramírez, J.M., Andreu, J.M., 2006. Aggression, and some related psychological
constructs (anger, hostility, and impulsivity): some comments from a research
project. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 30, 276–291.
doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.04.015
Ratcliff, N.J., Bernstein, M.J., Cundiff, J.L., Vescio, T.K., 2012a. Seeing wrath from the
top (through stratified lenses): Perceivers high in social dominance orientation
show superior anger identification for high-status individuals. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
48, 1373–1376. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.05.016
Ratcliff, N.J., Franklin, R.G., Nelson, A.J., Vescio, T.K., 2012b. The Scorn of Status: A
Bias Toward Perceiving Anger on High-Status Faces. Soc. Cogn. 30, 631–642.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/101521soco2012305631
Ridgeway, C., Diekema, D., 1989. Dominance and Collective Hierarchy Formation in
Male and Female Task Groups. Am. Sociol. Rev. 54, 79. doi:10.2307/2095663
31
Ridgeway, C.L., 1987. Nonverbal Behavior, Dominance, and the Basis of Status in
Task Groups. Am. Sociol. Rev. 52, 683. doi:10.2307/2095603
Salvador, A., 2005. Coping with competitive situations in humans. Neurosci. Biobehav.
Rev. 29, 195–205. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.07.004
Sánchez-Martín, J.R., Azurmendi, A., Pascual-Sagastizabal, E., Cardas, J., Braza, F.,
Braza, P., Carreras, M.R., Muñoz, J.M., 2011. Androgen levels and anger and
impulsivity measures as predictors of physical, verbal and indirect aggression in
boys and girls. Psychoneuroendocrinology 36, 750–760.
doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.10.011
Sanfey, A.G., 2003. The Neural Basis of Economic Decision-Making in the Ultimatum
Game. Science (80-. ). 300, 1755–1758. doi:10.1126/science.1082976
Schultheiss, O.C., Wirth, M.M., Stanton, S.J., 2004. Effects of affiliation and power
motivation arousal on salivary progesterone and testosterone. Horm. Behav. 46,
592–599. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2004.07.005
Sell, A., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., 2014. The human anger face evolved to enhance
cues of strength. Evol. Hum. Behav. 35, 425–429.
doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.05.008
Shariff, A.F., Tracy, J.L., 2011. What Are Emotion Expressions For? Curr. Dir. Psychol.
Sci. 20, 395–399. doi:10.1177/0963721411424739
Shariff, A.F., Tracy, J.L., 2009. Knowing who’s boss: Implicit perceptions of status from
the nonverbal expression of pride. Emotion 9, 631–639. doi:10.1037/a0017089
32
Soloff, P.H., Kelly, T.M., Strotmeyer, S.J., Malone, K.M., Mann, J.J., 2003. Impulsivity,
gender, and response to fenfluramine challenge in borderline personality disorder.
Psychiatry Res. 119, 11–24. doi:10.1016/S0165-1781(03)00100-8
Stanton, S.J., Edelstein, R.S., 2009. The physiology of women’s power motive: Implicit
power motivation is positively associated with estradiol levels in women. J. Res.
Pers. 43, 1109–1113. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.08.002
Stanton, S.J., Schultheiss, O.C., 2009. The hormonal correlates of implicit power
motivation. J. Res. Pers. 43, 942–949. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.001
Stanton, S.J., Schultheiss, O.C., 2007. Basal and dynamic relationships between
implicit power motivation and estradiol in women. Horm. Behav. 52, 571–580.
doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2007.07.002
Stanton, S.J., Wirth, M.M., Waugh, C.E., Schultheiss, O.C., 2009. Endogenous
testosterone levels are associated with amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal
cortex responses to anger faces in men but not women. Biol. Psychol. 81, 118–
122. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2009.03.004
Stefanacci, L., Amaral, D.G., 2002. Some observations on cortical inputs to the
macaque monkey amygdala: an anterograde tracing study. J. Comp. Neurol. 451,
301–323. doi:10.1002/cne.10339
Suarez, E., Krishnan, K.R.R., 2006. The relation of free plasma tryptophan to anger,
hostility, and aggression in a nonpatient sample of adult men and women. Ann.
Behav. Med. 31, 254–260. doi:10.1207/s15324796abm3103_7
Terburg, D., Aarts, H., van Honk, J., 2012a. Testosterone Affects Gaze Aversion From
Angry Faces Outside of Conscious Awareness. Psychol. Sci. 23, 459–463.
doi:10.1177/0956797611433336
Terburg, D., Aarts, H., van Honk, J., 2012b. Memory and attention for social threat:
Anxious hypercoding-avoidance and submissive gaze aversion. Emotion 12, 666–
672. doi:10.1037/a0027201
Terburg, D., Hooiveld, N., Aarts, H., Kenemans, J.L., van Honk, J., 2011. Eye Tracking
Unconscious Face-to-Face Confrontations. Psychol. Sci. 22, 314–319.
doi:10.1177/0956797611398492
33
Terburg, D., Morgan, B., van Honk, J., 2009. The testosterone-cortisol ratio: A
hormonal marker for proneness to social aggression. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 32,
216–223. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2009.04.008
Tiedens, L.Z., 2001. Anger and advancement versus sadness and subjugation: the
effect of negative emotion expressions on social status conferral. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 80, 86–94. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.86
Tiedens, L.Z., Ellsworth, P.C., Mesquita, B., 2000. Sentimental Stereotypes: Emotional
Expectations for High-and Low-Status Group Members. Personal. Soc. Psychol.
Bull. 26, 560–575. doi:10.1177/0146167200267004
Tipples, J., Atkinson, A.P., Young, A.W., 2002. The eyebrow frown: A salient social
signal. Emotion 2, 288–296. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.2.3.288
Unger, E.K., Burke, K.J., Yang, C.F., Bender, K.J., Fuller, P.M., Shah, N.M., 2015.
Medial Amygdalar Aromatase Neurons Regulate Aggression in Both Sexes. Cell
Rep. 10, 453–462. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2014.12.040
van der Ham, W.F.J., Broekens, J., Roelofsma, P.H.M.P., 2014. The Effect of
Dominance Manipulation on the Perception and Believability of an Emotional
Expression, in: Emotion Modeling. pp. 101–114. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12973-
0_6
van der Vegt, B.J., Lieuwes, N., van de Wall, E.H.E.M., Kato, K., Moya-Albiol, L.,
Martínez-Sanchis, S., de Boer, S.F., Koolhaas, J.M., 2003. Activation of
serotonergic neurotransmission during the performance of aggressive behavior in
rats. Behav. Neurosci. 117, 667–674. doi:10.1037/0735-7044.117.4.667
van der Westhuizen, D., Solms, M., 2015. Social dominance and the Affective
Neuroscience Personality Scales. Conscious. Cogn. 33, 90–111.
doi:10.1016/j.concog.2014.12.005
van Honk, J., Bos, P.A., Terburg, D., 2014. Testosterone and Dominance in Humans:
Behavioral and Brain Mechanisms, in: Jean Decety, Christen, Y. (Eds.), New
Frontiers in Social Neuroscience. Springer International Publishing, pp. 201–214.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02904-7_12
van Honk, J., Harmon-Jones, E., Morgan, B.E., Schutter, D.J.L.G., 2010. Socially
34
explosive minds: the triple imbalance hypothesis of reactive aggression. J. Pers.
78, 67–94. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00609.x
van Honk, J., Tuiten, A., Hermans, E.J., Putnam, P., Koppeschaar, H., Thijssen, J.,
Verbaten, R., van Doornen, L., 2001. A single administration of testosterone
induces cardiac accelerative responses to angry faces in healthy young women.
Behav. Neurosci. 115, 238–242. doi:10.1037//0735-7044.115.1.238
van Honk, J., Tuiten, A., Van Den Hout, M., Koppeschaar, H., Thijssen, J., De Haan,
E., Verbaten, R., 2000. Conscious and preconscious selective attention to social
threat: Different neuroendocrine response patterns. Psychoneuroendocrinology
25, 577–591. doi:10.1016/S0306-4530(00)00011-1
van Honk, J., Tuiten, A., Verbaten, R., van den Hout, M., Koppeschaar, H., Thijssen,
J., de Haan, E., 1999. Correlations among salivary testosterone, mood, and
selective attention to threat in humans. Horm. Behav. 36, 17–24.
doi:10.1006/hbeh.1999.1521
van Wingen, G.A., Mattern, C., Verkes, R.J., Buitelaar, J., Fernández, G., 2010.
Testosterone reduces amygdala-orbitofrontal cortex coupling.
Psychoneuroendocrinology 35, 105–113. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2009.09.007
van Wingen, G.A., Ossewaarde, L., Bäckström, T., Hermans, E.J., Fernández, G.,
2011. Gonadal hormone regulation of the emotion circuitry in humans.
Neuroscience 191, 38–45. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2011.04.042
van Wingen, G.A., Zylicz, S.A., Pieters, S., Mattern, C., Verkes, R.J., Buitelaar, J.K.,
Fernández, G., 2009. Testosterone Increases Amygdala Reactivity in Middle-Aged
Women to a Young Adulthood Level. Neuropsychopharmacology 34, 539–547.
doi:10.1038/npp.2008.2
Watkins, C.D., Debruine, L.M., Feinberg, D.R., Jones, B.C., 2013. A sex difference in
the context-sensitivity of dominance perceptions. Evol. Hum. Behav. 34, 366–372.
doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.06.004
Whalen, P.J., Shin, L.M., McInerney, S.C., Fischer, H., Wright, C.I., Rauch, S.L., 2001.
A functional MRI study of human amygdala responses to facial expressions of fear
versus anger. Emotion 1, 70–83. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.1.1.70
35
Wilkowski, B.M., Meier, B.P., 2010. Bring it on: angry facial expressions potentiate
approach-motivated motor behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98, 201–10.
doi:10.1037/a0017992
Witte, A.V., Flöel, A., Stein, P., Savli, M., Mien, L.-K., Wadsak, W., Spindelegger, C.,
Moser, U., Fink, M., Hahn, A., Mitterhauser, M., Kletter, K., Kasper, S.,
Lanzenberger, R., 2009. Aggression is related to frontal serotonin-1A receptor
distribution as revealed by PET in healthy subjects. Hum. Brain Mapp. 30, 2558–
2570. doi:10.1002/hbm.20687
Zeidan, M.A., Igoe, S.A., Linnman, C., Vitalo, A., Levine, J.B., Klibanski, A., Goldstein,
J.M., Milad, M.R., 2011. Estradiol Modulates Medial Prefrontal Cortex and
Amygdala Activity During Fear Extinction in Women and Female Rats. Biol.
Psychiatry 70, 920–927. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.05.016
Zink, C.F., Tong, Y., Chen, Q., Bassett, D.S., Stein, J.L., Meyer-Lindenberg, A., 2008.
Know Your Place: Neural Processing of Social Hierarchy in Humans. Neuron 58,
273–283. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.01.025
Ziomkiewicz, A., Wichary, S., Gomula, A., Pawlowski, B., 2015. Trait anxiety
moderates the association between estradiol and dominance in women. Physiol.
Behav. 143, 97–103. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.02.045
36
Figure caption:
37
Table 1. The key features and main results of the selected studies on association between dominance and anger.
First author, n
Design Independent variables Dependent variables Main results [association dominance-anger]
year Population (♀/♂)
Hareli, 2015 94 - MBA students Experimental EE transitions (pictures); Perception of competence, EA in the end ↑ PD; change in emotion has an effect on
(Exp 1) (♀/♂) sociability, and intensity of PD; sign of weakness (sadness) has a greater impact on
emotions; PD; PD than a sign of strength (anger); [Positive]
Hareli, 2015 220 - Participants Experimental EE transitions (videos); Perceived competence, EA at the beginning or end (of an emotional reaction) ↑
(Exp 2) recruited from sociability, and intensity of PD; change in emotion has an effect on PD; end emotion
websites (♀/♂) emotions; PD; affects PD; [Positive]
Westhuizen, 36 - Academic Correlational Salivary C and T; Affect (ANPS); dominance scale; There was no correlation between T and dominance; T
2015 students (♂) correlated - with anger; C was not related to these
measures; T/C ratio + correlated with dominance; [Positive]
Carr, 2014 55 - Academic Experimental Induction of dominance; EMG (corrugator and Perception of EA ↑ corrugator activity; there was interaction
students (♀/♂) Stimuli: EE in combination zygomatic muscles); between emotional valence and power (status) of stimuli;
with high or low social PANAS; LP subjects smiled to all targets and expressions; HP
status (videos);
subjects did not mimic HP targets’ smiles; [Positive]
Ham, 2014 36 - Dutchmen Experimental Role conditions (high and Perception of believability Social context impacts perception of EE; after
(♀/♂) (online) low status for participant and emotional intensity; manipulation, stimuli with EA was perceived as more
and for stimulus); Stimuli: PD; dominant, regardless of stimuli status; [Positive]
EA or sadness;
McLinton, 601 - Japanese Correlational MIDAI scales (superiors, subordinates, co-workers, JAP: ↓ levels of anger towards superiors (and strangers);
2014 (JAP) and family, and strangers); AUS: influence of social status was non-significant; there
Australian (AUS) was no difference between AUS and JAP in anger towards
workers (♀/♂)
co-workers and subordinates; in both cultures, the ↑ levels
of anger were towards co-workers and subordinates;
culture was relevant to EA; [JAP: Positive; AUS: n.s.]
Hortensius, 32 - Healthy Experimental Facial and bodily EE Attentional bias (gaze- There was a slower gaze-aversion from non-consciously
2014 (Exp 1) young people (pictures) aversion); Dominance processed EA compared to happy, being + related to
(♀/♂) (BAS); dominance; there was an effect on dominance provoked by
masked angry body postures; [Positive]
Hofman, 2013 26 - Healthy Experimental Facial EE (pictures); high Dominance (BAS); EEG; High dominance group had ↑ attentional bias for EA;
academic and low dominance; Attentional bias; dominance was related to anger bias; dominance was
students (♀/♂) reflected in the asymmetry in cortical and subcortical
processing; [Positive]
38
Park, 2013 2081 - Japanese Correlational Objective social status (occupation and educational Social status were associated with anger, showing that EA
(JAP) and achievements); subjective social status (self- ↓ with subjective status, but ↑ with objective status; there
American (USA) assessment); AE (AEI); personality traits (Big Five); was a moderator effect of culture: USA: ↓ subjective status
community
had ↑ EA; JAP: ↑ objective status had ↑ EA; [Positive;
sample (♀/♂)
Negative]
Watkins, 2013 200 - Participants Experimental Facial EE; stimulus sex PD; PD in ♂ was modulated by stimulus sex, regardless of EE;
recruited via (online) (picture) and level of facial ♀ perceived masculinized faces as more dominant (than
Internet (♀/♂) sexual dimorphism feminized), after EA of male stimuli, but not after female EA
(masculinized-feminized);
or after expression of happiness of both sexes; PD follows
a sex-specific pattern; [Positive (for ♀)]
Flowe, 2012 512 - Academic Experimental Facial EE; stimulus sex Perception of criminal PD was + associated with criminality in ♀ and ♂;
students (♀/♂) (picture) appearance, trustworthiness and dominance underlie the perception of
trustworthiness, criminal appearance; anger was + correlated with
dominance, threatening, dominance in ♀ and ♂; EA was perceived as more criminal
maturity and anger; appearance; [Positive]
Ratcliff, 2012a 48 - Academic Experimental Facial EE; high or low EE identification; SDO; High SDO subjects were better at identifying the emotions
students (♀/♂) social status; of high-status people; EA on high-status faces was more
discernible for perceivers high in SDO; [Positive]
Ratcliff, 2012b 69 - Academic Experimental Facial EE (video); high or EE detection; reaction Anger was perceived to persist longer on high-status faces
(Exp 1) students (♀/♂) low social status; time; compared to low-status faces; [Positive]
Ratcliff, 2012b 39 - Academic Experimental Facial EE (video); high or EE detection; reaction Anger was perceived to appear sooner on high-status
(Exp 2) students (♀/♂) low social status; time; faces compared to low-status faces; [Positive]
Terburg, 20 - Healthy Experimental 0.5 mg of testosterone; Mood (PMD); attentional After T administration, gaze-aversion was slower for EA
2012a volunteers (♀) facial EE; bias (gaze-aversion); than for happiness (unconsciously); anger-specific effect
confirms that T promotes dominance-related gaze
behavior; [Positive]
Terburg, 40 - Healthy Experimental Facial EE; Memory; anger (STAS); Submissive subjects averted their gaze more rapidly from
2012b volunteers (♀/♂) anxiety (STAI); attentional EA and anxious subjects initially gazed more often to, but
bias (gaze-aversion); subsequently avoided looking directly at angry faces; trait
anxiety predicted improved memory for the location of
angry faces; [Positive]
Terburg, 2011 40 - Healthy Experimental Facial EE; Attentional bias (gaze- Slower gaze aversion from masked EA is predicted by the
volunteers (♀/♂) aversion); Dominance dominance scores; speed of gaze aversion from masked
(BAS); EA depends on motives of dominance; [Positive]
Hareli, 2009 210 - Canadians Experimental Facial EE (picture); PD; There were main effects for EA and for stimulus sex, and
(Exp 1) (♀/♂) stimulus sex; an interaction between them; ♂ EA and happiness had ↑
PD, and ↓ PD when expressed sadness or fear, when
compared with neutral expression; ♀ EA and happiness
39
had ↑ PD and ↓ PD when expressed sadness, when
compared with neutral or fear expression; [Positive]
Hareli, 2009 96 - Managers Experimental EE (videos); Perception of emotional EA was perceived as more dominant than shame; EA was
(Exp 2) (♀/♂) intensity; PD; not significantly different from neutral expression; EA was
perceived as less submissive; [Positive]
Brescoll, 2008 69 - Adults with Experimental EE (videos); stimulus sex; Status conferral; Subjects conferred higher status on the ♂ EA stimulus,
(Exp 1) work experience perception of competence; when compared with ♂ sadness or ♀ EA; ♀ sadness
(♀/♂) assessment of internal or expression had higher status conferred than ♀ EA; ♀ EA
external attributions; was attributed to internal characteristics and ♂ EA reaction
was attributed to external circumstances; [Positive]
Brescoll, 2008 180 - Adults with Experimental EE (videos); stimulus sex; Status conferral; There was an interaction between EA and stimuli gender;
(Exp 2) work experience occupational status of perception of competence; ♀ EA conferred lower status than ♀ expression of sadness;
(♀/♂) stimulus; assessment of internal or ♀ EA was seen as more out of control than ♂ EA and than
external attributions; ♂ or ♀ neutral expressions; [Positive]
Brescoll, 2008 133 - Adults with Experimental EE (videos); stimulus sex; Status conferral; There was an interaction between EA and stimuli gender;
(Exp 3) work experience perception of competence; ♂ EA without external attribution received higher status
(♀/♂) than the unemotional ♂ or ♂ EA with external attribution;
♀ EA with external attribution received higher status than ♀
EA without external attribution; [Positive]
Hess, 2004 44 - Academic Experimental EE (videos); physical Perception of emotional When affiliation and dominance levels were controlled for,
(Exp 1) students (♀/♂) intensity; stimuli sex; intensity; ♀ were perceived as expressing more intense anger, and
♂ were perceived as happier; [Positive]
van Honk, 40 - Academic Experimental Facial EE (picture); Dominance (DPI); T; C; There was no effect between self-reported dominance and
2000 students (♂) supraliminal and subliminal attentional bias; attentional bias for both the unmasked and the masked
stimulus; task; C ↑ in subjects with selective attention towards
unmasked and masked EA; T ↑ in subjects with selective
attention towards unmasked; [n.s.: self-reported
dominance; Positive: T]
Tiedens, 2000 40 - Academic Experimental Vignettes of different Emotion perception; High status character was viewed as angry or proud and
(Exp 1) students (♀/♂) social status characters; attribution of agency; low status character was seen as sad or guilty; [Positive]
Tiedens, 2000 71 - Volunteers Experimental Vignettes of character with Social status; Angry or proud character was viewed as high status and
(Exp 2) (♀/♂) different emotional states; sad or guilty character was seen as low status; [Positive]
Legend: ♀ = Women; ♂ = Men; EA = Expression of anger; PD = Perception of dominance; ANPS = Affective neuroscience personality scales; EMG = Electromyography;
PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; LP = Low-power; HP = High-power; + = Positive/positively; - = Negative/negatively; ↑ = Increase; ↓ = Decrease; EE =
Emotional expression; MIDAI = McLinton interpersonal domain-specific anger instrument; BAS = Behavioral activation scale; EEG = Electroencephalography; AEI = Anger
expression Inventory; IV = Independent variable; BIG-5 = five factor personality traits model; SDO = Social dominance orientation scale; PMD = Profile of mood state; T =
Testosterone; C = Cortisol; STAS = State-trait anger scale; STAI = State-trait anxiety inventory; DPI = Dutch personality inventory; n.s. = non-significant.
40
41