“Our study suggests that women might not have the same opportunity for influence when they express anger,” Salerno said. “We found that when men expressed their opinion with anger, participants rated them as more credible, which made them less confident in their own opinion. But when women expressed identical arguments and anger, they were perceived as more emotional, which made participants more confident in their own opinion.”
“This effect can’t be explained by women communicating anger less effectively or looking different when they express anger because we took all of that out of the equation,” Salerno explained. “The effect was due to participants thinking that anger came from a man versus a woman.”
The study featured 210 jury eligible undergraduates who participated in a computer simulation in which they believed they were deliberating with five other participants. Each participant viewed a 17-minute presentation that was based on evidence from a real case in which a man was tried for murdering his wife. Participants read summaries of the opening and closing statements and eyewitness testimonies. They also viewed photographs of the crime scene and the alleged murder weapon.
To begin deliberation participants had a preliminary vote of guilty or not guilty. Each then exchanged a series of messages, purportedly with peers who also all had to agree as a group on whether or not to convict.
These exchanges were scripted in advance and in a very specific way – four of the fictional jurors agreed with the participant’s verdict and one disagreed. The lone hold out had a user name that was clearly male or female and the other names were gender neutral.
All participants read essentially the same arguments, but for some the points were made with anger, others were made in the spirit of fear and the rest were conveyed in an emotionally neutral tone. During the course of discussion, participants periodically answered questions about the extent to which they felt confident in their initial verdict. Afterwards they voted once more (only seven percent changed their minds).
“Participants confidence in their own verdict dropped significantly after male holdouts expressed anger,” the researchers stated. “Participants became significantly more confident in their original verdicts after female holdouts expressed anger, even though they were expressing the exact same opinion and emotion as the male holdouts.”
The influence effect was “evident in both male and female participants,” Salerno said.
tl;dr in the completely text-based arguments, the ONLY difference between the “man’s” and “woman’s” argument was the name attached to it – no body language (let alone ~crying~), no voices, no clothing, nothing – and the angry man was seen as convincingly valid while the angry woman was seen as convincingly invalid.
Why do people react so differently to male and female anger, even in 2015? Salerno thinks it’s because we believe anger comes from a different source for both genders. “I believe that people are drawing different conclusions about where the anger is coming from,” she says. “Male anger is situational. People think they must really have a reason to be so passionate. It’s situational conviction.”
Female anger, however, is assumed to be coming from within. “Female anger tends to be attributed to something internal,” says Salerno. “People think: ‘That’s just such an emotional person, she’s not thinking clearly.’ ”
You know about how, in the latest episode (episode 54: A Carnival Comes to Town) Cecil uses his immense influential power over the townspeople of Night Vale to attack a perfectly normal, benevolent carnival?
This sends me back to when Steve Carlsberg said that Carlos had been good for Cecil, that Carlos had somehow made Cecil better.
Carlos is gone now.
And Cecil just attempted to murder the entire staff of a carnival (for maybe only the reason that he CAN NOT GO to the carnival with Carlos) and he didn’t have to question his morality because, who would care? He doesn’t have to be good for Carlos anymore. Carlos has left him and he isn’t looking for a way back.
This is the most intensely questionable thing Cecil has done since he and Carlos became a possibility.
And we hardly even knew him before that. We DO NO KNOW the pre-Carlos Cecil. Who was he? What was he like?
So, what if, what IF; without Carlos, Cecil becomes something akin to a dictator? He would never out-right say it, he would never out-right admit it to himself: but he IS how the town gets its news, its political updates! So what if he changes the facts around a bit?
Cecil likes Dana but he obviously does not agree with the direction she has taken her career as mayor. She could say anything she wants, and Cecil would twist it around to better ‘protect’ or 'defend’ the citizens of Night Vale. As that is all he ever set out to do.
And Intern Moreen sees it. That’s why she’s upset, maybe a little resigned, at the end of the broadcast. She can see it happening. 'You are a part of this Moreen! Do you not love victory over outsiders that mean us harm?’ She remembers the old Cecil and she can see him coming back.
Without Carlos, Cecil will get more and more intense: bigger things, actual casualties. But in the middle of his biggest 'expansion’ yet, Carlos comes back.
Carlos comes back, at last.
He had been watching the photos on the mountain walls, watching Cecil. He had been convinced by the masked warriors to just stay and watch for a few days, and the longer he watched, the less he wanted to come back to the man who is no longer anything like his boyfriend. But now, now Cecil has gone too far. Carlos can’t just stand back and watch the body of the man who he used to love organize these horrid, horrid things against the town he has come to think of as home.
Sadly, Carlos is still in the desert – the same desert our new mayor was once trapped in. Fortunately, as Dana discovered, cell phone batteries last forever there, and there’s pretty good wifi, despite there being just vast amounts of sand and apparently, a mountain. But if our mayor can make it out fine, I think a scientist can too. Scientists are always fine.