The Impact of Emotional Displays on Perceived Power: Anger vs. Apology

Key Insight

Certain emotional displays convey strength, while others signal lower status. Anger, counterintuitively, is a powerful emotion, and its display can be a strategic move to acquire power, even when individuals have made mistakes or committed malfeasance. This contrasts with expressing sadness, remorse, or offering apologies, which convey less power and should generally be avoided when projecting competence and power are important. The logic behind this is that anger is associated with coercion and intimidation; its public display often violates social norms, suggesting that only the more powerful are permitted such transgressions.

Social psychologist Larissa Tiedens' research demonstrates that 'people expressing anger are seen as dominant, strong, competent, and smart,' and are believed to occupy more powerful social positions. Through four studies, Tiedens found that 'anger displays can lead to status conferral,' as anger conveys competence while sadness conveys warmth. In a field study, employees who expressed anger more frequently achieved more promotions, earned higher salaries, and received better manager assessments for future advancement. This research suggests that while anger expressions might make someone seem 'unlikable and cold,' likability is not related to status conferral, and anger can convey toughness in negotiations.

Apology carries three significant downsides. First, it 'inherently associates a transgressor with wrongful behavior,' unambiguously establishing responsibility for negative outcomes even when blame might have been ambiguous. Second, apologizing incurs psychological costs, as refusing to apologize results in greater feelings of power, control, value integrity, and self-worth, aligning with an individual's or organization's desire for consistency. Third, and critically, apology is a low-power behavior that influences how others perceive the apologizer, reducing their perceived influence, status, and prestige. The Tylenol case in 1982 is a rare exception where an apology was effective, as the manufacturer, Johnson and Johnson, had no agency in the cyanide poisonings, a distinction often absent in other organizational crises.