In this dissertation I focus on the behavioral consequences of anger in third-party situations and argue that anger can lead to prosocial behavior when the option to do so is included. More specifically, it is investigated when, why and how anger leads to prosocial behavior. Overview of Chapters The chapters in this dissertation are based on individual papers that are published or under review. As a consequence, the co-authored chapters contain "we" instead of "I". Furthermore, the chapters are written such that they can be understood separately, but they can also be read as part of a set. The order of the chapters reflects the development of my reasoning about anger 1. Chapter 2 reviews the literature on behavioral consequences of anger, and proposes that the behavioral consequences can be explained from an equity perspective (i.e., the idea that angry people want to right wrongs/restore equity). Chapter 3 is aimed at experimentally establishing whether anger leads to prosocial behavior. The most important finding is that prosocial consequences stem from thirdparty anger (where there is a possibility to act prosocially towards a victim), and that acting prosocially towards a victim is preferred over punishment of a perpetrator. These prosocial effects of anger seem to occur independently from empathic concerns. Chapter 4 investigates when anger leads to prosocial behavior, by testing the equity perspective as proposed in Chapter 2. The most important finding is that anger leads to prosocial behavior when one can still restore equity with that behavior; when equity is already restored by compensation of the victim or punishment of the perpetrator, one's anger and one's own motivation to act prosocially towards the victim decrease.

No abstract

Anger has traditionally been associated with aggression and antagonistic behavior. A series of studies revealed that experiences of third-party anger (anger experienced when observing that harm is done to someone) can also lead to prosocial behavior. More specifically, three studies, hypothetical scenarios as well as a behavioral study, revealed that third-party anger can promote compensation of the victim. The results also showed a preference for such prosocial behaviors over antagonistic behaviors. We conclude that behaviors stemming from anger, whether antagonistic or prosocial, are reactions to inequity, albeit determined by the constraints of the situation.

Research suggests that to restore equity, third parties prefer compensation of a victim over the punishment of a perpetrator. It remains unclear, however, whether this preference for compensation is stable or specific to certain situations. In six experimental studies, we find that adjustments in the characteristics of the situation or in the available behavioral options hardly modify the preference of compensation over punishment. This preference for compensation was found even in cases where punishment might refrain a perpetrator from acting unfairly again in the future, and even when punishment has a greater impact in restoring equity than compensation does. Thus, the preference of compensation over punishment appears to be quite robust. Implications and ideas for future research are discussed.

This article investigates if and when anger appeals (communications that elicit anger in people), can be used to increase donations to charity. In an experimental study the idea was tested that anger leads to higher charitable donations, under the condition that people can restore equity with that donation (i.e., restore the harm done to the victim). Results indeed show that when one's donation serves a specific restorative function (i.e., compensates the suffering of women so that they can start a new life) as compared to a non-restorative function (i.e., offers help in special crisis centers for women, to alleviate their suffering and not worsen their situation), angry participants donated more to charity. This difference was absent when people did not experience anger. Furthermore, angry people donated more to the restorative charity than people not experiencing this emotion. The effect of anger on charitable donations occurred independently from people's empathic concern. These results thus suggest that anger can act as an emotional appeal in soliciting charitable donations.