- Email: [email protected]
Trait anger and sarcasm use
Personality and Individual Differences 154 (2020) 109662
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Short Communication
Trait anger and sarcasm use Kinga Szymaniak, Piotr Kałowski
T
⁎
Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Stawki 5/7, 00-183 Warsaw
A B S T R A C T
Sarcasm can indirectly express aggression, though it might be more cognitively demanding to produce. We expected positive correlations between trait anger and self-reported, but not objective (response choice task) sarcasm use. Results revealed associations between trait anger and self-reported sarcasm use only. Regression analysis showed trait anger to be a significant, independent predictor of self-reported sarcasm use. The results are discussed with reference to expanding the understanding of individual differences in nonliteral language use.
1. Introduction Anger is an approach-oriented emotion with negative valence, arising in response to goal blockage (Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009). Trait anger is the individual difference in frequency, intensity, and duration of state anger (see Deffenbacher, 2016; Wilkowski & Robinson, 2008, 2010). Though it can be functional (Berkout, Tinsley, & Flynn, 2018), high trait anger is linked to negative interpersonal consequences, including relationship difficulties (e.g., Ali & Naylor, 2013). Accordingly, the cognitive mechanisms of trait anger are of interest. These include biased information processing and impaired effortful control (e.g., Gable, Poole, & Harmon- Jones, 2015), less efficient inhibition of impulsive reactions (e.g., Robinson, Fetterman, Hopkins, & Krishnakumar, 2013) and an overly positive self-view with respect to agentic dispositions (Zajenkowski & Gignac, 2018), which might stem from an anger-related optimistic bias an and increased perception of situational control (Lerner & Keltner, 2001). High trait anger also involves selective attention towards anger-related semantic cues (Parrot, Zeichner, & Evces, 2005; Wilkowski & Robinson, 2010) and an attentional bias towards rewarding verbal stimuli (Van Honk, Tuiten, de Haan, van de Hout, & Stam, 2001). However, prior studies typically employed single words (e.g., punch). Thus, research using complex verbal stimuli is needed. A noteworthy category thereof might be verbal irony/sarcasm.1 A core feature of sarcasm is the literal/nonliteral (intended) meaning discrepancy (Dynel, 2014; see also Athanasiadou & Colston, 2017; Garmendia, 2018). Through such indirectness, it can accomplish many goals, from humor to verbal aggression (Attardo, 2000), by having “hearers […] interpret ironic criticisms as less negative than their literal counterparts and ironic compliments as less praising than their literal counterparts” (Garmendia, 2018, p. 104).
However, sarcasm can also enhance perceived criticism (Colston, 1997). Personality factors might also influence its use and interpretation (Milanowicz, Tarnowski, & Bokus, 2017). Taking into account this ambiguity, it seems pertinent to examine trait anger in this context. To our best knowledge, it has not been explored previously. 2. The current research The current study was a part of a larger project exploring the relation between trait anger and sarcasm. In concordance with previous findings, sarcasm may be seen as socially attractive (Attardo, 2000) while anger may be related to overestimating one`s cognitive abilities, also in socially desirable areas (e.g., Zajenkowski & Gignac, 2018). Therefore, it can be expected that high-trait anger individuals would tend to describe themselves as sarcastic. However, we did not anticipate links between trait anger and objective sarcasm use: Results show no significant ties between cognitive functioning and personality (e.g., Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2004). Sarcasm use and understanding can also be cognitively taxing (Gibbs, 2012). High-trait anger individuals, characterized by greater impulsivity (e.g., Lerner & Keltner, 2001), might thus have difficulties in mustering resources for such expressions. 3. Method 3.1. Participants and procedure Two hundred and fourteen individuals (183 women, Mage = 23.58, SD = 4.75) recruited via social networks took part in an online study. Upon giving informed consent, they completed a set of questionnaires (Polish adaptations). Trait anger was measured with the Aggression
⁎
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Kałowski). 1 1 These terms are used interchangeably, though sarcasm can be understood as an especially critical form of irony (Dynel, 2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109662 Received 4 July 2019; Received in revised form 1 October 2019; Accepted 9 October 2019 0191-8869/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Personality and Individual Differences 154 (2020) 109662
K. Szymaniak and P. Kałowski
Questionnaire (AQ; Buss & Perry, 1992; Choynowski, 1972) and the State Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 (STAXI-2, Bąk, 2016; Spielberger, 1999; α = 0.87 and 0.82, respectively). Example AQ and STAXI items are “Some of my friends think I am hot-headed” and “I fly off the handle,” respectively. We computed a composite anger score (mean value of standardized AQ and STAXI-2 subscale scores, α = 0.91). Self-reported sarcasm use was assessed with the Sarcasm Self- Report Scale (SSS, Ivanko, Pexman, & Olineck, 2004,2 α = 0.83 in the current study; example item: “How sarcastic would your friends say you are?”). Sarcasm use was also measured with an experimental task: four vignettes, each with four response choices (sarcasm, criticism, understanding, changing the topic) to the sarcastic remark therein, addressed to the participant. The vignettes and answers were selected on the basis of expert judgements (three academic psychologists in the field of psycholinguistics), from a wider generated pool, informed by literature review. The judges were asked to assess the extent to which each comment was correspondingly sarcastic, critical, etc. (1 - not at all; 7 - extremely). Four highest scoring vignettes were chosen (see Pexman & Olineck, 2002; Kreuz & Link, 2002, for similar procedures). Example vignette: Your friend is giving a presentation at a work meeting. You notice that a few people in attendance are getting bored. After the presentation, your friend asks: “How was it?” You reply:
Table 1 Correlation matrix.
1. STAXI-2 2. AQ 3. ANGER 4. Self-reported sarcasm 5. Objective sarcasm use M SD Α
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
– 788** 946** 183** 107 24.22 6.4 87
– 946** 176* 113 18.99 6.09 82
– 190** 116 000 064 91
– 362** 62.34 15.52 83
1.00 1.01 53
Note. ANGER = mean value of standardized AQ and STAXI-2 subscale scores. ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01, ⁎⁎⁎ p < .001. Table 2 Regression analyses with anger and sarcasm use as predictors and self-reported sarcasm use as dependent variable. Outcome: Self-report irony Model 1 Predictors Β
R2
Model 2 Predictors
β
Sex
147*
Sex Objective sarcasm use
144* 360***
Sex Objective sarcasm use ANGER
160* 341***
022 Step 1
Sex
147*
Step 2
Sex ANGER
166* 205**
Step 3
Sex ANGER
160* 165*
Objective sarcasm use
341***
022
063
1 2 3 4
You sure know how to charm the crowd. [Irony] I could barely stand it. [Literal criticism] Nobody likes presentations. [Literal cheering up/support] We shouldn't have presentations at work. [Changing the topic].
143
178
Women responded to vignettes featuring women, and men - to vignettes featuring men. Their content was identical otherwise. The number of sarcastic response choices (0–4) was taken as the final score. In the current study, this measure achieved an α of 0.53. The study design received approval from the Ethics Committee of the [AUTHOR_1 & AUTHOR_2 AFFILIATION].
R2
166
165*
Note. ANGER = mean value of standardized AQ and STAXI-2 subscale scores. ⁎ p < .05.,. ⁎⁎ p < .01,. ⁎⁎⁎ p < .001.
4. Results
5. Discussion
Pearson correlations (see Table 1) revealed that trait anger was positively related to SSS scores, r = 0.183, p < .01; r = 0.183, p < .01 for the STAXI and the AQ, respectively. However, trait anger and objective sarcasm use (the number of times a participant chose the ironic response in the experimental task) were not significantly linked, r = 0.107, p < .05 for the STAXI and r = 0.113, p < .05 for the AQ. Finally, subjective and objective sarcasm scores were positively connected, r = 0.362, p < .01. However, results of the latter measure should be viewed with caution due to its relatively poor reliability. It might stem from slightly different contexts described in the vignettes, as we explored potential general anger-irony links, and did not focus on specific type of situation. Subsequently, we ran two regression models (see Table 2) to test how trait anger and objective sarcasm use predict self-reported sarcasm. In both models, gender (female = 1, male = 2) was controlled in the first step, since it is significant with regards to sarcasm (e.g., Milanowicz, Tarnowski, & Bokus, 2017). The results revealed that trait anger predicted self-reported sarcasm significantly and independently from objective use. Importantly, though the latter was the strongest predictor among all three variables, it did not exclude trait anger (when inserted in Step 3) from contributing significantly to explaining the variance in subjective sarcasm use.
Consistent with our hypothesis, trait anger was positively correlated with self-reported sarcasm use, though not with our experimental task of response selection. Anger involves a tendency to overstate abilities and engage in selfenhancement (Witte, Callahan, & Perez-Lopez, 2002). On the other hand, sarcasm can be more cognitively demanding than literal speech (Gibbs, 2012). Thus, high trait anger, because of the associated impulsivity and cognitive narrowing (Gable, Poole, & Harmon-Jones, 2015), might make producing sarcasm more difficult and/or less likely (Bromberek-Dyzman, 2012; Pexman, 2008; Robinson et al., 2012; Wilkowski & Robinson, 2008; 2010). Though sarcasm can be jocular, its complexity can also be a “calculated and shrewd strategy” of criticism in “a cold way, without showing an apparent emotional arousal” (Anolli, Ciceri, & Infantino, 2002, p. 274). Thus, it seems plausible that high-trait anger individuals might describe themselves as more sarcastic: It may grant a feeling of control over the situation being commented on. The perception of control is considered a core aspect of anger-related tendency framework (Lerner & Keltner, 2001). In turn, several theories of sarcasm can also be understood to refer to the aspect of control. For example, KumonNakamura, Glucksberg and Brown (1995) conceptualize irony as a vehicle for alluding to failed expectations concerning a person/situation. 6. Limitations and further directions
2 Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312370061_ Sarcasm_Self-Report_Scale Polish translation made by the authors for the purpose of this study.
Though a relatively large sample, the use of multiple pre-existing 2
Personality and Individual Differences 154 (2020) 109662
K. Szymaniak and P. Kałowski
measures alongside an experimental task (with gender-matched stimuli validated by independent raters), and its anonymous online character attenuating social desirability of the responses constitute the study's strengths, it also has several limitations. Above all, the experimental task contained only four stimuli and involved premade responses. It achieved an α of 0.53. Results should thus be interpreted with caution. However, it followed the design usually employed in such studies (Katz, 2017) and was intended to represent a prototypical sarcasm context. Follow-up studies should employ more elaborate tasks, including more detailed/varied contexts, controlling for other variables than gender, including open-ended questions, or measuring interpretation (e.g., humor vs. criticism ratings) in addition to use might be worthwhile. Also, it would be useful to examine whether experimentally manipulated state anger can have concomitant effects on sarcasm use/interpretation. Finally, the study`s design assumed the participants’ ability to report their complex feelings. It would be worthwhile to control such variables as self-awareness in the further investigation.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2004). A possible model for explaining the personality-intelligence interface. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 249–264. Choynowski, M. (1972). Skrócony podręcznik do testu “Nastroje i Humory” A. H. Bussa i A. Durkee [Short manual for A. H. Buss’ and A. Durkee's Moods and Temper questionnaire]. Warsaw, Poland: MOiW. Colston, H. L. (1997). Salting a wound or sugaring a pill: The pragmatic functions of ironic criticism. Discourse Processes, 23(1), 25–45. Deffenbacher, J. L. (2016). Trait anger: Theory, findings, and implications. Advances in Personality Assessment, 77–201. Dynel, M. (2014). Isn't it ironic? Defining the scope of humorous irony. Humor, 27(4), 619–639. Gable, P. A., Poole, B. D., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2015). Anger perceptually and conceptually narrows cognitive scope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(1), 163. Garmendia, J. (2018). Irony. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Gibbs, R. W. (2012). Are ironic acts deliberate? Journal of Pragmatics, 44(1), 104–115. Ivanko, S. L., Pexman, P. M., & Olineck, K. M. (2004). How sarcastic are you? Individual differences and verbal irony. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23(3), 244–271. Katz, A. (2017). The standard experimental approach to the study of irony: Let us not be hasty in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. L. Colston (Eds.). Irony in language use and communication (pp. 237–255). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Kreuz, R. J., & Link, K. E. (2002). Asymmetries in the use of verbal irony. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21(2), 127–143. Kumon-Nakamura, S., Glucksberg, S., & Brown, M. (1995). How about another piece of pie: The allusional pretense theory of discourse irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(1), 3–21. Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 146–159. Milanowicz, A., Tarnowski, A., & Bokus, B. (2017). When sugar-coated words taste dry: The relationship between gender, anxiety, and response to irony. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. Parrott, D. J., Zeichner, A., & Evces, M. (2005). Effect of trait anger on cognitive processing of emotional stimuli. The Journal of General Psychology, 132(1), 67–80. Pexman, P. M. (2008). It's fascinating research: The cognition of verbal irony. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 286–290. Robinson, M. D., Fetterman, A. K., Hopkins, K., & Krishnakumar, S. (2013). Losing one's cool: Social competence as a novel inverse predictor of provocation-related aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(10), 1268–1279. Spielberger, C. D. (1999). State-trait anger expression inventory-2: STAXI-2. Van Honk, J. V., Tuiten, A., de Haan, E., van de Hout, M., & Stam, H. (2001). Attentional biases for angry faces: Relationships to trait anger and anxiety. Cognition & Emotion, 15(3), 279–297. Wilkowski, B. M., & Robinson, M. D. (2008). The cognitive basis of trait anger and reactive aggression: An integrative analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(1), 3–21. Wilkowski, B. M., & Robinson, M. D. (2010). The anatomy of anger: An integrative cognitive model of trait anger and reactive aggression. Journal of personality, 78(1), 9–38. Witte, T. H., Callahan, K. L., & Perez-Lopez, M. (2002). Narcissism and anger: An exploration of underlying correlates. Psychological Reports, 90(3), 871–875. Zajenkowski, M., & Gignac, G. E. (2018). Why do angry people overestimate their intelligence? Neuroticism as a suppressor of the association between Trait-Anger and subjectively assessed intelligence. Intelligence, 70, 12–21.
Acknowledgement The study was financed by and carried out as part of the National Science Center of Poland grant no. 2018/31/N/HS6/00201 awarded to Kinga Szymaniak. References Ali, P. A., & Naylor, P. B. (2013). Intimate partner violence: A narrative review of the biological and psychological explanations for its causation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(3), 373–382. Anolli, L., Ciceri, R., & Infantino, M. G. (2002). From “blame by praise” to “praise by blame”: Analysis of vocal patterns in ironic communication. International Journal of Psychology, 37(5), 266–276. Irony in language use and communication. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. L. Colston (Eds.). Irony in language use and communication. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Attardo, S. (2000). Irony markers and functions: Towards a goal-oriented theory of irony and its processing. Rask, 12(1), 3–20. Bąk, W. (2016). Pomiar stanu, cechy, ekspresji i kontroli złości. Polska adaptacja kwestionariusza STAXI-2 [Measuring state, trait, expression, and control of anger. The Polish adaptation of the STAXI-2]. Polskie Forum Psychologiczne, 21(1), 93–122. Berkout, O. V., Tinsley, D., & Flynn, M. K. (2018). A review of anger, hostility, and aggression from an ACT perspective. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 11, 34–43. Bromberek-Dyzman, K. (2012). Affective twist in irony processing. Humana.Mente Journal of Philosophical Studies, 5(23), 83–111. Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459. Carver, C. S., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2009). Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 183–204.
3
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Short Communication
Trait anger and sarcasm use Kinga Szymaniak, Piotr Kałowski
T
⁎
Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Stawki 5/7, 00-183 Warsaw
A B S T R A C T
Sarcasm can indirectly express aggression, though it might be more cognitively demanding to produce. We expected positive correlations between trait anger and self-reported, but not objective (response choice task) sarcasm use. Results revealed associations between trait anger and self-reported sarcasm use only. Regression analysis showed trait anger to be a significant, independent predictor of self-reported sarcasm use. The results are discussed with reference to expanding the understanding of individual differences in nonliteral language use.
1. Introduction Anger is an approach-oriented emotion with negative valence, arising in response to goal blockage (Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009). Trait anger is the individual difference in frequency, intensity, and duration of state anger (see Deffenbacher, 2016; Wilkowski & Robinson, 2008, 2010). Though it can be functional (Berkout, Tinsley, & Flynn, 2018), high trait anger is linked to negative interpersonal consequences, including relationship difficulties (e.g., Ali & Naylor, 2013). Accordingly, the cognitive mechanisms of trait anger are of interest. These include biased information processing and impaired effortful control (e.g., Gable, Poole, & Harmon- Jones, 2015), less efficient inhibition of impulsive reactions (e.g., Robinson, Fetterman, Hopkins, & Krishnakumar, 2013) and an overly positive self-view with respect to agentic dispositions (Zajenkowski & Gignac, 2018), which might stem from an anger-related optimistic bias an and increased perception of situational control (Lerner & Keltner, 2001). High trait anger also involves selective attention towards anger-related semantic cues (Parrot, Zeichner, & Evces, 2005; Wilkowski & Robinson, 2010) and an attentional bias towards rewarding verbal stimuli (Van Honk, Tuiten, de Haan, van de Hout, & Stam, 2001). However, prior studies typically employed single words (e.g., punch). Thus, research using complex verbal stimuli is needed. A noteworthy category thereof might be verbal irony/sarcasm.1 A core feature of sarcasm is the literal/nonliteral (intended) meaning discrepancy (Dynel, 2014; see also Athanasiadou & Colston, 2017; Garmendia, 2018). Through such indirectness, it can accomplish many goals, from humor to verbal aggression (Attardo, 2000), by having “hearers […] interpret ironic criticisms as less negative than their literal counterparts and ironic compliments as less praising than their literal counterparts” (Garmendia, 2018, p. 104).
However, sarcasm can also enhance perceived criticism (Colston, 1997). Personality factors might also influence its use and interpretation (Milanowicz, Tarnowski, & Bokus, 2017). Taking into account this ambiguity, it seems pertinent to examine trait anger in this context. To our best knowledge, it has not been explored previously. 2. The current research The current study was a part of a larger project exploring the relation between trait anger and sarcasm. In concordance with previous findings, sarcasm may be seen as socially attractive (Attardo, 2000) while anger may be related to overestimating one`s cognitive abilities, also in socially desirable areas (e.g., Zajenkowski & Gignac, 2018). Therefore, it can be expected that high-trait anger individuals would tend to describe themselves as sarcastic. However, we did not anticipate links between trait anger and objective sarcasm use: Results show no significant ties between cognitive functioning and personality (e.g., Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2004). Sarcasm use and understanding can also be cognitively taxing (Gibbs, 2012). High-trait anger individuals, characterized by greater impulsivity (e.g., Lerner & Keltner, 2001), might thus have difficulties in mustering resources for such expressions. 3. Method 3.1. Participants and procedure Two hundred and fourteen individuals (183 women, Mage = 23.58, SD = 4.75) recruited via social networks took part in an online study. Upon giving informed consent, they completed a set of questionnaires (Polish adaptations). Trait anger was measured with the Aggression
⁎
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Kałowski). 1 1 These terms are used interchangeably, though sarcasm can be understood as an especially critical form of irony (Dynel, 2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109662 Received 4 July 2019; Received in revised form 1 October 2019; Accepted 9 October 2019 0191-8869/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Personality and Individual Differences 154 (2020) 109662
K. Szymaniak and P. Kałowski
Questionnaire (AQ; Buss & Perry, 1992; Choynowski, 1972) and the State Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 (STAXI-2, Bąk, 2016; Spielberger, 1999; α = 0.87 and 0.82, respectively). Example AQ and STAXI items are “Some of my friends think I am hot-headed” and “I fly off the handle,” respectively. We computed a composite anger score (mean value of standardized AQ and STAXI-2 subscale scores, α = 0.91). Self-reported sarcasm use was assessed with the Sarcasm Self- Report Scale (SSS, Ivanko, Pexman, & Olineck, 2004,2 α = 0.83 in the current study; example item: “How sarcastic would your friends say you are?”). Sarcasm use was also measured with an experimental task: four vignettes, each with four response choices (sarcasm, criticism, understanding, changing the topic) to the sarcastic remark therein, addressed to the participant. The vignettes and answers were selected on the basis of expert judgements (three academic psychologists in the field of psycholinguistics), from a wider generated pool, informed by literature review. The judges were asked to assess the extent to which each comment was correspondingly sarcastic, critical, etc. (1 - not at all; 7 - extremely). Four highest scoring vignettes were chosen (see Pexman & Olineck, 2002; Kreuz & Link, 2002, for similar procedures). Example vignette: Your friend is giving a presentation at a work meeting. You notice that a few people in attendance are getting bored. After the presentation, your friend asks: “How was it?” You reply:
Table 1 Correlation matrix.
1. STAXI-2 2. AQ 3. ANGER 4. Self-reported sarcasm 5. Objective sarcasm use M SD Α
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
– 788** 946** 183** 107 24.22 6.4 87
– 946** 176* 113 18.99 6.09 82
– 190** 116 000 064 91
– 362** 62.34 15.52 83
1.00 1.01 53
Note. ANGER = mean value of standardized AQ and STAXI-2 subscale scores. ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01, ⁎⁎⁎ p < .001. Table 2 Regression analyses with anger and sarcasm use as predictors and self-reported sarcasm use as dependent variable. Outcome: Self-report irony Model 1 Predictors Β
R2
Model 2 Predictors
β
Sex
147*
Sex Objective sarcasm use
144* 360***
Sex Objective sarcasm use ANGER
160* 341***
022 Step 1
Sex
147*
Step 2
Sex ANGER
166* 205**
Step 3
Sex ANGER
160* 165*
Objective sarcasm use
341***
022
063
1 2 3 4
You sure know how to charm the crowd. [Irony] I could barely stand it. [Literal criticism] Nobody likes presentations. [Literal cheering up/support] We shouldn't have presentations at work. [Changing the topic].
143
178
Women responded to vignettes featuring women, and men - to vignettes featuring men. Their content was identical otherwise. The number of sarcastic response choices (0–4) was taken as the final score. In the current study, this measure achieved an α of 0.53. The study design received approval from the Ethics Committee of the [AUTHOR_1 & AUTHOR_2 AFFILIATION].
R2
166
165*
Note. ANGER = mean value of standardized AQ and STAXI-2 subscale scores. ⁎ p < .05.,. ⁎⁎ p < .01,. ⁎⁎⁎ p < .001.
4. Results
5. Discussion
Pearson correlations (see Table 1) revealed that trait anger was positively related to SSS scores, r = 0.183, p < .01; r = 0.183, p < .01 for the STAXI and the AQ, respectively. However, trait anger and objective sarcasm use (the number of times a participant chose the ironic response in the experimental task) were not significantly linked, r = 0.107, p < .05 for the STAXI and r = 0.113, p < .05 for the AQ. Finally, subjective and objective sarcasm scores were positively connected, r = 0.362, p < .01. However, results of the latter measure should be viewed with caution due to its relatively poor reliability. It might stem from slightly different contexts described in the vignettes, as we explored potential general anger-irony links, and did not focus on specific type of situation. Subsequently, we ran two regression models (see Table 2) to test how trait anger and objective sarcasm use predict self-reported sarcasm. In both models, gender (female = 1, male = 2) was controlled in the first step, since it is significant with regards to sarcasm (e.g., Milanowicz, Tarnowski, & Bokus, 2017). The results revealed that trait anger predicted self-reported sarcasm significantly and independently from objective use. Importantly, though the latter was the strongest predictor among all three variables, it did not exclude trait anger (when inserted in Step 3) from contributing significantly to explaining the variance in subjective sarcasm use.
Consistent with our hypothesis, trait anger was positively correlated with self-reported sarcasm use, though not with our experimental task of response selection. Anger involves a tendency to overstate abilities and engage in selfenhancement (Witte, Callahan, & Perez-Lopez, 2002). On the other hand, sarcasm can be more cognitively demanding than literal speech (Gibbs, 2012). Thus, high trait anger, because of the associated impulsivity and cognitive narrowing (Gable, Poole, & Harmon-Jones, 2015), might make producing sarcasm more difficult and/or less likely (Bromberek-Dyzman, 2012; Pexman, 2008; Robinson et al., 2012; Wilkowski & Robinson, 2008; 2010). Though sarcasm can be jocular, its complexity can also be a “calculated and shrewd strategy” of criticism in “a cold way, without showing an apparent emotional arousal” (Anolli, Ciceri, & Infantino, 2002, p. 274). Thus, it seems plausible that high-trait anger individuals might describe themselves as more sarcastic: It may grant a feeling of control over the situation being commented on. The perception of control is considered a core aspect of anger-related tendency framework (Lerner & Keltner, 2001). In turn, several theories of sarcasm can also be understood to refer to the aspect of control. For example, KumonNakamura, Glucksberg and Brown (1995) conceptualize irony as a vehicle for alluding to failed expectations concerning a person/situation. 6. Limitations and further directions
2 Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312370061_ Sarcasm_Self-Report_Scale Polish translation made by the authors for the purpose of this study.
Though a relatively large sample, the use of multiple pre-existing 2
Personality and Individual Differences 154 (2020) 109662
K. Szymaniak and P. Kałowski
measures alongside an experimental task (with gender-matched stimuli validated by independent raters), and its anonymous online character attenuating social desirability of the responses constitute the study's strengths, it also has several limitations. Above all, the experimental task contained only four stimuli and involved premade responses. It achieved an α of 0.53. Results should thus be interpreted with caution. However, it followed the design usually employed in such studies (Katz, 2017) and was intended to represent a prototypical sarcasm context. Follow-up studies should employ more elaborate tasks, including more detailed/varied contexts, controlling for other variables than gender, including open-ended questions, or measuring interpretation (e.g., humor vs. criticism ratings) in addition to use might be worthwhile. Also, it would be useful to examine whether experimentally manipulated state anger can have concomitant effects on sarcasm use/interpretation. Finally, the study`s design assumed the participants’ ability to report their complex feelings. It would be worthwhile to control such variables as self-awareness in the further investigation.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2004). A possible model for explaining the personality-intelligence interface. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 249–264. Choynowski, M. (1972). Skrócony podręcznik do testu “Nastroje i Humory” A. H. Bussa i A. Durkee [Short manual for A. H. Buss’ and A. Durkee's Moods and Temper questionnaire]. Warsaw, Poland: MOiW. Colston, H. L. (1997). Salting a wound or sugaring a pill: The pragmatic functions of ironic criticism. Discourse Processes, 23(1), 25–45. Deffenbacher, J. L. (2016). Trait anger: Theory, findings, and implications. Advances in Personality Assessment, 77–201. Dynel, M. (2014). Isn't it ironic? Defining the scope of humorous irony. Humor, 27(4), 619–639. Gable, P. A., Poole, B. D., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2015). Anger perceptually and conceptually narrows cognitive scope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(1), 163. Garmendia, J. (2018). Irony. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Gibbs, R. W. (2012). Are ironic acts deliberate? Journal of Pragmatics, 44(1), 104–115. Ivanko, S. L., Pexman, P. M., & Olineck, K. M. (2004). How sarcastic are you? Individual differences and verbal irony. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23(3), 244–271. Katz, A. (2017). The standard experimental approach to the study of irony: Let us not be hasty in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. L. Colston (Eds.). Irony in language use and communication (pp. 237–255). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Kreuz, R. J., & Link, K. E. (2002). Asymmetries in the use of verbal irony. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21(2), 127–143. Kumon-Nakamura, S., Glucksberg, S., & Brown, M. (1995). How about another piece of pie: The allusional pretense theory of discourse irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(1), 3–21. Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 146–159. Milanowicz, A., Tarnowski, A., & Bokus, B. (2017). When sugar-coated words taste dry: The relationship between gender, anxiety, and response to irony. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. Parrott, D. J., Zeichner, A., & Evces, M. (2005). Effect of trait anger on cognitive processing of emotional stimuli. The Journal of General Psychology, 132(1), 67–80. Pexman, P. M. (2008). It's fascinating research: The cognition of verbal irony. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 286–290. Robinson, M. D., Fetterman, A. K., Hopkins, K., & Krishnakumar, S. (2013). Losing one's cool: Social competence as a novel inverse predictor of provocation-related aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(10), 1268–1279. Spielberger, C. D. (1999). State-trait anger expression inventory-2: STAXI-2. Van Honk, J. V., Tuiten, A., de Haan, E., van de Hout, M., & Stam, H. (2001). Attentional biases for angry faces: Relationships to trait anger and anxiety. Cognition & Emotion, 15(3), 279–297. Wilkowski, B. M., & Robinson, M. D. (2008). The cognitive basis of trait anger and reactive aggression: An integrative analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(1), 3–21. Wilkowski, B. M., & Robinson, M. D. (2010). The anatomy of anger: An integrative cognitive model of trait anger and reactive aggression. Journal of personality, 78(1), 9–38. Witte, T. H., Callahan, K. L., & Perez-Lopez, M. (2002). Narcissism and anger: An exploration of underlying correlates. Psychological Reports, 90(3), 871–875. Zajenkowski, M., & Gignac, G. E. (2018). Why do angry people overestimate their intelligence? Neuroticism as a suppressor of the association between Trait-Anger and subjectively assessed intelligence. Intelligence, 70, 12–21.
Acknowledgement The study was financed by and carried out as part of the National Science Center of Poland grant no. 2018/31/N/HS6/00201 awarded to Kinga Szymaniak. References Ali, P. A., & Naylor, P. B. (2013). Intimate partner violence: A narrative review of the biological and psychological explanations for its causation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(3), 373–382. Anolli, L., Ciceri, R., & Infantino, M. G. (2002). From “blame by praise” to “praise by blame”: Analysis of vocal patterns in ironic communication. International Journal of Psychology, 37(5), 266–276. Irony in language use and communication. In A. Athanasiadou, & H. L. Colston (Eds.). Irony in language use and communication. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Attardo, S. (2000). Irony markers and functions: Towards a goal-oriented theory of irony and its processing. Rask, 12(1), 3–20. Bąk, W. (2016). Pomiar stanu, cechy, ekspresji i kontroli złości. Polska adaptacja kwestionariusza STAXI-2 [Measuring state, trait, expression, and control of anger. The Polish adaptation of the STAXI-2]. Polskie Forum Psychologiczne, 21(1), 93–122. Berkout, O. V., Tinsley, D., & Flynn, M. K. (2018). A review of anger, hostility, and aggression from an ACT perspective. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 11, 34–43. Bromberek-Dyzman, K. (2012). Affective twist in irony processing. Humana.Mente Journal of Philosophical Studies, 5(23), 83–111. Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459. Carver, C. S., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2009). Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 183–204.
3