Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci . 2026 Mar 17;21(1):nsag013. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsag013 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search The effect of induced humility on anger and P3b responses to frustrating events Eddie Harmon-Jones Eddie Harmon-Jones 1 School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Mathews Bldg., Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing Find articles by Eddie Harmon-Jones 1, ✉ , Qian Wang Qian Wang 2 School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Mathews Bldg., Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing Find articles by Qian Wang 2 , Douglas J Angus Douglas J Angus 3 School of Psychology, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, 4226, Australia Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing - review & editing Find articles by Douglas J Angus 3 , Kinga Szymaniak Kinga Szymaniak 4 School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Mathews Bldg., Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review & editing Find articles by Kinga Szymaniak 4 , Geneva Lorraine Geneva Lorraine 5 School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Mathews Bldg., Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review & editing Find articles by Geneva Lorraine 5 , Sophie Quynh Chau Vu Sophie Quynh Chau Vu 6 School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Mathews Bldg., Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review & editing Find articles by Sophie Quynh Chau Vu 6 , Cindy Harmon-Jones Cindy Harmon-Jones 7 School of Psychology, Western Sydney University, Bankstown, New South Wales, 2200, Australia Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Writing - review & editing Find articles by Cindy Harmon-Jones 7 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Mathews Bldg., Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia 2 School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Mathews Bldg., Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia 3 School of Psychology, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, 4226, Australia 4 School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Mathews Bldg., Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia 5 School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Mathews Bldg., Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia 6 School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Mathews Bldg., Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia 7 School of Psychology, Western Sydney University, Bankstown, New South Wales, 2200, Australia ✉ Corresponding author. School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. E-mail: [email protected] Roles Eddie Harmon-Jones : Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing Qian Wang : Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing Douglas J Angus : Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing - review & editing Kinga Szymaniak : Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review & editing Geneva Lorraine : Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review & editing Sophie Quynh Chau Vu : Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review & editing Cindy Harmon-Jones : Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Writing - review & editing Received 2025 Mar 13; Revised 2025 Dec 13; Accepted 2026 Mar 3; Collection date 2026. © The Author(s) 2026. Published by Oxford University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected] for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact [email protected]. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13071401 PMID: 41844543 Abstract Past correlational research has suggested that humility is negatively related to anger. The current experiment tested the hypothesis that a humility induction, compared to neutral and pride inductions, would reduce anger as measured by self-report and P3b to frustrating events. Participants ( N = 124) were randomly assigned to undergo either humility, neutral, or pride inductions. After these inductions, participants performed a task that has been found to evoke anger and larger P3b responses to frustrating events. Self-reported anger was lower to the frustrative events after the humility induction compared to the neutral and pride inductions. P3b was larger in amplitude to frustrating events compared to other events; however, it did not differ between emotion conditions. This dissociation between self-reported (explicit) and psychophysiological (implicit) responses to frustration may have occurred because humility increased the downregulation of explicit but not implicit anger responses. Keywords: ERP, P3b, RewP, anger, humility, pride Introduction Because anger is associated with adverse individual and social outcomes ( Richard et al. 2022 ), strategies to reduce anger are of interest. Inducing humility, an emotion with multiple properties that oppose anger, may be an effective method to reduce it ( Summerell et al. 2020 ). The current study aimed to experimentally test whether inducing humility reduces anger, measured through self-report and electroencephalography (EEG). Can humility reduce anger? Because anger is a negative emotion (subjectively disliked; Harmon-Jones et al. 2011 , Szymaniak et al. 2023 ), experimental studies have tested and found that inducing various positive emotional states—such as mild sexual arousal ( Baron 1976 ), humour ( Baron 1978 ), and relaxation ( Davison et al. 1991 )—can reduce various components of anger. Another positive emotion with potential to reduce anger is humility. From a theoretical perspective, humility opposes anger along three dimensions of emotion ( Harmon-Jones et al. 2017 ). While anger is negatively valenced, high in arousal, and high in approach motivation ( Angus and Harmon-Jones 2019 ), humility is positively valenced, low in arousal, and low in approach motivation ( Summerell et al. 2020 ). Thus, individuals in a humble state may be less reactive when provoked, with their lower levels of negative valence, arousal, and approach motivation leading to reduced anger when encountering a trigger. In addition, humility opposes anger in other ways. Humility is characterized by low self-focus, appreciation for others, openness to new ideas, and accurate awareness of one’s place in the world ( Kruse et al. 2017 ). Humility’s other-oriented focus also increases gratitude by increasing one’s appreciation of others ( Kruse et al. 2014 ). Many of these features are at odds with anger, which is characterized by high self-focus, a lack of appreciation for others, and narrow-mindedness ( Gable et al. 2015 ). Because of these features, humility may reduce anger. Trait humility is negatively correlated with trait anger ( Harmon-Jones, Szymaniak et al. 2025 , Summerell et al. 2020 ) as well as aggression ( Volk et al. 2018 ), a behavioural expression of anger ( Hortensius et al. 2012 ). Additionally, positive attitudes towards anger are positively correlated with anger but negatively correlated with humility ( Szymaniak et al. 2023 ). Although correlational studies suggest an inverse relationship between humility and anger, only a few experimental studies have tested this idea. Two experiments found that inducing humility reduces aggression ( Summerell et al. 2020 , Van Tongeren et al. 2016 ). However, anger and aggression are distinct constructs ( Buss and Perry 1992 ). One recent experiment suggested that inducing humility can reduce self-reported anger to hypothetical ambiguous conflictual social situations ( Harmon-Jones, Szymaniak et al. 2025 ). However, no previous research has tested whether humility inductions reduce anger to actual frustrating events. Moreover, no previous research has tested this hypothesis using psychophysiological measures, such as event-related potentials that might be increased by unexpected frustrations. Importance of including pride as a comparison condition Some experimental studies on reducing anger via emotion induction have focused on positive emotions, making it important to control for positive valence when examining humility’s effects on anger. One way to do this is to include pride as a comparison condition. Pride is a positive emotion, defined as pleasure derived from one’s personal achievements ( Kusano and Kemmelmeier 2022 ). However, unlike humility, pride is posited to be high in arousal ( Yan et al. 2024 ) and approach motivation ( Harmon-Jones et al. 2009 ). Indeed, pride and humility may have different effects on anger. Pride is associated with dominance, a correlate of aggression ( Cheng et al. 2010 ). Also, prideful leaders are more prone to anger ( Bachkirov 2024 ). Moreover, pride increases goal-orientation ( Williams and DeSteno 2008 ), and a drive for prestige ( Cheng et al. 2010 ), which may heighten anger when goals are unexpectedly blocked ( Angus and Harmon-Jones 2019 ). Thus, including pride as a comparison condition would allow for the testing of two contrasting predictions: does humility reduce anger or does positive valence (both humility and pride) reduce anger? Evoking anger in EEG research Traditional anger-evoking methods such as delivering insulting feedback are impractical for event-related potential (ERP) studies, because they require numerous trials. ERPs reflect brain electrical activity to events (Boudewyn et al. 2018). One widely studied ERP is the P3b, which is an ERP characterized by a positive peak that typically occurs 300–700 milliseconds after stimulus onset ( Pontifex et al. 2009 ). The P3b is associated with the detection of unexpected and salient stimuli ( Verleger et al. 1994 ). The anger incentive delay task ( Angus and Harmon-Jones 2019 ) was created to have numerous trials so that ERPs could be measured when individuals expected to receive a reward but did not receive it, creating a frustrative non-reward event. This anger incentive delay task revealed that the P3b ERP was increased by frustrating events, and P3b amplitudes correlated with self-reported anger to the frustrating events ( Angus and Harmon-Jones 2019 ). To provide a bit more detail, this task is an adaptation of the monetary incentive delay task, a computer game in which participants win or lose money based on their reaction time to a stimulus ( Knutson et al. 2000 ). Participants complete multiple trials. After responding to a reaction time stimulus, participants receive feedback that indicates whether or not they responded sufficiently fast to earn a reward. Then, they receive another stimulus that indicates the amount of money won, lost, or broke even on that trial. In some trials, they unexpectedly lose money despite having received feedback that they responded quickly enough; that is, their goal of winning money was unexpectedly blocked. This results in anger ( Angus and Harmon-Jones 2019 ). In other trials, they unexpectedly win money. This results in surprise. In this task, P3b amplitudes to the monetary stimuli have been found to be higher for both frustration and surprise trials compared to other trial types ( Angus and Harmon-Jones 2019 ). However, P3b amplitude was only correlated with self-reported anger during frustration trials and not surprise trials. Our primary focus in the past and current research is on P3b. In addition, we explored how another ERP, the reward positivity (RewP), was influenced in the angering task, because this component relates to emotive processes. The RewP is characterized by a positive peak that typically occurs 250–350 milliseconds after stimulus onset ( Harmon-Jones et al. 2020 ), and it is associated with responses to positive feedback, particularly signals of reward for achieving a goal ( Bress and Hajcak 2013 , Harmon-Jones et al. 2024 , Proudfit 2015 ). RewP has also been found to be associated with responses to reward prediction errors, that is, feedback that is better or worse than expected ( Nieuwenhuis et al. 2004 , Sambrook and Goslin 2015 ). The current research The present experiment tested whether inducing humility, as a discrete emotion, reduces anger. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: humility, neutrality, or pride. First, they underwent an emotion induction. Afterwards, they played the anger incentive delay task ( Angus and Harmon-Jones 2019 ). This cycle of emotion induction followed by the task was repeated four times. Anger was measured with self-reports and average P3b amplitudes during frustration trials of the game. We predicted that induced humility would evoke lower levels of anger, as measured by self-report and P3b, compared to induced neutrality and induced pride. Materials and Methods Participants A total of 124 right-handed first-year psychology students (77 female, age M = 19.9, SD = 4.73) from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) participated in exchange for course credit. The study was approved by the UNSW Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel C (3788). Procedure After providing informed consent, EEG sensors were attached. Participants completed questionnaires. Then, they practiced the anger incentive delay task. Afterwards, participants underwent one round of emotion induction (pride, humility, or neutrality; randomly assigned) and played one block of the anger incentive delay task (60 trials). This was repeated four times (240 trials). Breaking up the trials into four cycles, each preceded by an emotion induction, was intended to prolong the emotion inductions and minimize fatigue. Finally, participants completed questionnaires assessing emotions experienced during the tasks. These questionnaires were administered at the end, because the measurement of self-reported emotions can influence subsequent responses ( Berkowitz and Troccoli 1990 ). Materials For the emotion inductions, participants alternated between watching videos and engaging in writing tasks—in a sequence of video, writing, video, writing. Each task lasted 5–6 minutes. Humility . The first video covered the Dunning–Kruger effect, a cognitive bias that leads individuals to overestimate their abilities ( Dunning 2011 ). Recognizing this bias may induce humility by encouraging a more accurate assessment of one’s capabilities ( Ashton and Lee 2005 ). The second video featured a humble speech by Australian tennis player Ashleigh Barty, aimed at inducing humility through emotional contagion effects ( Kaplan and Iacoboni 2006 ). The first writing task was a diary entry that avoided using the pronoun “I,” adapted from Lavelock et al. (2014) . The second was a letter of gratitude, adapted from Kruse et al. (2017) . Both writing tasks align with the definition of humility, which emphasizes increased other-focus and reduced self-focus ( Ashton and Lee 2005 ). Pride . The first video covered Imposter Syndrome, a phenomenon where individuals doubt their accomplishments and abilities despite evidence of success ( LaDonna et al. 2018 ). Learning about this syndrome may induce pride by alleviating feelings of self-doubt ( Cheng et al. 2010 ). The second video was about building self-confidence and recognizing one’s strengths, which align with the definition of pride ( Tracy et al. 2013 ). The two writing tasks had participants describe three accomplishments they were proud of and describe five personal qualities they were proud of ( Kusano and Kemmelmeier 2022 ). Neutral . In the neutral condition, participants viewed nature and weather forecast videos and wrote about two everyday activities towards which they felt neutral ( Summerell et al. 2020 ). Anger incentive delay task The anger incentive delay task is a computerized reaction-time task in which participants aim to either win money (win trials) or avoid losing money (breakeven trials) in each trial. Participants succeed if they responded quickly enough when a target stimulus appears on the screen. Each trial followed the same sequence of steps ( Fig. 1 ). First, participants were shown a “W” or “L,” indicating whether their goal for the upcoming trial was to win money or break even (not lose), respectively. Second, the target stimulus (****) appeared, prompting them to press the SHIFT key with their right index finger. Third, they received feedback on whether they responded quickly enough. Finally, participants learned how much money they won or lost for that trial. In win trials , they won $0.40 if they responded quickly enough and $0.00 if they did not. In breakeven trials , they won $0.00 if they responded quickly enough and lost $0.20 if they did not. Between each step of the trial, participants were shown a fixation cross (+). Figure 1. Open in a new tab Anger incentive delay task sequence. Note . Screen duration in milliseconds is reported in parentheses. Twenty-two percent of trials were manipulated with an expectancy violation to evoke frustration or surprise. In the frustration trials, participants lost money despite expecting to win, creating a negative expectancy violation. That is, after receiving feedback that their reaction time was fast enough, they were informed they still lost money. In these trials, participants’ goals were unexpectedly blocked, which evokes anger ( Harmon-Jones, Willardt, et al. 2025 ). In surprise trials, participants won money despite expecting to break even, creating a positive expectancy violation ( Harmon-Jones, Willardt, et al. 2025 ). Overall, there were six trial types based on the goal (win or breakeven) and outcome (success, fail, expectancy violation). See Table 1 for a description of the trials. Table 1. Description of trials. Trial type/name Goal type/cue Speed feedback Monetary feedback Win/successful Potential win Fast (up arrow) $0.40 Breakeven/successful Potential loss Fast (up arrow) $0.00 Frustration Potential win Fast (up arrow) $0.00 Surprise Potential loss Fast (up arrow) $0.40 Win/unsuccessful Potential win Slow (down arrow) $0.00 Breakeven/unsuccessful Potential loss Slow (down arrow) −$0.20 Open in a new tab Self-report questionnaires The Discrete Emotion Questionnaire (DEQ; C. Harmon-Jones et al. 2016a ) asked participants to rate the extent to which they felt each emotion while watching videos and completing writing tasks (C. Harmon-Jones et al. 2016b ). A shortened version of the DEQ, adapted from Angus and Harmon-Jones (2019) , was administered for each of the six trial types in the anger incentive delay task. Participants rated the extent to which they experienced several emotions on a scale ranging from 1 (none at all) to 7 (an extreme amount), along with additional humility (humble, modest, tolerant, down-to-earth, respectful, open-minded) and pride (like I am achieving, fulfilled, like I have self-worth, confident, accomplished, successful) sub-scales taken from Summerell et al. (2020) and Tracy et al. (2009) . Attention checks. Three attention check questions were embedded in the questionnaires to assess response quality (e.g., “Select very inaccurate”). EEG protocol and recordings EEG was recorded from 32 scalp locations (sites) using Ag/AgCl-tipped electrodes, positioned according to the International 10-20 standard. Signals were amplified and sampled at 2048 Hz using BioSemi ActiveTwo ( BioSemi, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Version 9.02 ). Two additional channels, CMS and DRL, served as the online reference and ground electrodes. Electrodes placed at the temples measured horizontal eye movements, while those placed above and below the right eye measured vertical eye movements. Electrodes on the mastoids were used for offline re-referencing. EEG processing and analysis. EEG data were processed using BrainVision Analyzer ( Brain Products, Munich, Germany, Version 2.3 ). First, raw data were down-sampled to 256 Hz. These signals were then re-referenced to the average of the mastoid electrodes. A zero-phase shift Butterworth band-pass filter (0.1–30 Hz; order 2) was applied to remove high- and low-frequency artifacts. A notch filter (50 Hz) was used to eliminate electrical line noise. Next, segments were created from 200 milliseconds before to 1,000 milliseconds after the presentation of stimuli indicating how much money was won or lost. Horizontal and vertical eye movements were then corrected for using Gratton and Coles’s (1983) algorithm. After correcting for eye movements, segments with artifacts were removed based on the following criteria: (i) a maximal voltage change of 50 µV per ms; (ii) a maximal difference of 300 µV between the highest and lowest values over the segment length; and (iii) a minimum of 0.5 µV per 100 ms interval. For inclusion in the ERP analyses, a minimum of 15 good segments were required for each trial type, per electrode, per participant. Data from 11 participants were excluded because of this. Following previous work ( Angus et al. 2017 , Angus and Harmon‐Jones 2019), we used the ERP PCA Toolkit ( Dien 2010a ) to quantify temporally and spatially overlapping ERP components. We first applied a temporal PCA using a promax rotation with Kaiser normalization ( Dien, 2010b ), treating samples as variables and conditions, participants, and electrodes as observations. We used the parallel test ( Cattell 1966 ) to set an upper bound on the number (eight) of temporal factors to extract (see Fig. 2 ). We then applied a spatial PCA to the resulting temporal factors, using an infomax rotation ( Dien 2010b ). Here, electrodes were used as variables, and conditions, participants, and temporal factor loadings as observations, with the parallel test ( Cattell 1966 ) used to select the number of retained spatial factors (three). Peak factor loadings were then converted into microvolts. Figure 2. Open in a new tab Temporal factor loadings. Note . Factor loadings have been converted to microvolts, and averaged across participants, channels, and conditions. The time course of TF1 and TF2 are consistent with the P3b and RewP, respectively. Factor combinations that account for >=1% of variance are presented and described in Table 2 . We inspected each factor combination to identify those with similar temporal and spatial characteristics to the RewP and P3b. The earliest of these reflected the RewP (TF4SF1), which peaked at 230 ms over Cz and accounted for 4.08% of the variance in the overall temporospatial PCA. The P3b was best reflected by TF1SF2, which peaked at 405 ms over Pz, and accounted for 12.21% of the variance. We then extracted the peak temporal-spatial loading for each of these factors for each participant and condition. One participant was removed from the PCA for having outlier values greater than 4 SD from the mean. Table 2. Temporal-spatial factor combinations. Factor combination a Peak latency (ms) Peak channel (negative) Peak channel (positive) Peak polarity Variance (%) TF1SF1 405 Fp1 Positive 14.26 TF1SF2 405 Pz Positive 12.21 TF1SF3 405 O2 Fz Positive 4.35 TF2SF1 995 Pz Negative 11.05 TF2SF2 995 Fp1 Positive 6.27 TF2SF3 995 O2 FC2 Positive 4.09 TF3SF1 640 Fp1 Positive 4.52 TF3SF2 640 PO4 Fp1 Negative 2.58 TF3SF3 640 O2 FC2 Positive 1.85 TF4SF1 230 Cz Positive 4.08 TF4SF2 230 Fp1 Positive 1.82 TF4SF3 230 Fp2 PO4 Positive 1.29 TF5SF1 128 Pz Positive 2.77 TF5SF2 128 O2 Fz Negative 1.13 TF5SF3 128 Fp1 O1 Negative 1.12 TF6SF1 320 FC2 Positive 1.28 Open in a new tab a Factor combinations may have multiple peak channels, as factor loadings may peak for both negative and positive polarities. Factor combinations with <1% variance are not reported. The mean (SD) number of trials for each trial type were as follows: gain/successful M = 57.37 (5.75); breakeven/successful M = 57.69 (5.88); frustration M = 26.84 (2.23); surprise M = 27.28 (1.72); gain/unsuccessful M = 24.44 (3.59); and breakeven/unsuccessful M = 24.94 (2.90). Results Manipulation checks Self-reported humility differed between conditions, F (2, 121) = 5.28, P = .006, η p 2 = 0.08. Follow-up tests revealed that compared to the neutral induction, humility was higher after the humility induction, t (121) = 3.10, P = .002, d = 0.68, and also higher after the pride induction, t (121) = 2.15, P = .033, d = 0.46. Self-reported pride differed between conditions, F (2, 121) = 14.24, P < .001, η p 2 = 0.19. Follow-up tests revealed that compared to the neutral induction, pride was higher after the pride induction, t (121) = 4.57, P < .001, d = 0.98, and also higher after the humility induction, t (121) = 4.38, P < .001, d = 0.97 (see Table 3 ). Table 3. Means (SD) for self-reported humility and pride for each condition. Self-reported emotion a Humility Neutral Pride Humility 3.44 (1.06) a 2.69 (1.22) b 3.19 (0.94) a Pride 3.34 (1.12) a 2.19 (1.10) b 3.35 (1.35) a Open in a new tab a Means are reported with standard deviations in parentheses. Within rows , means with different subscripts differ at P < .05 in comparisons. As expected, the humility and pride inductions caused more humility and pride (compared to the neutral induction), respectively. However, the humility induction also increased pride, and the pride induction increased humility. See Supplementary Materials for analyses of other emotional responses to this manipulation. Self-reported anger to trials For self-reported anger, a significant main effect for trial type, F (5, 605) = 102.66, P < .001, η 2 p = 0.46, but for not condition, F (2, 121) = 0.75, P = .476, η 2 p = .01, occurred. In addition, a significant trial type × condition interaction occurred, F (10, 605) = 3.90, P < .001, η 2 p = .06. To unpack the significant trial type × condition interaction, follow-up comparisons were conducted. For the t -tests below involving the humility condition, because directional hypotheses were specified in advance regarding humility lowering anger relative to neutral and pride conditions, one-tailed tests were used. First, anger to frustration trials was compared between conditions. In this between-subjects analysis, the humility induction caused lower anger to frustration trials compared with the neutral induction, t (121) = 2.24, P = .014, d = 0.49. The humility induction also differed marginally from the pride induction in anger to frustration trials, t (121) = 1.38, P = .085, d = 0.33 (and pride did not differ from neutral, t (121) = 0.79, P = .430, d = 0.17) (see Table 4 ). Table 4. Means (SD) for self-reported anger by trial type and condition. Trial type a Humility Neutral Pride Frustration trials 3.04 (1.53) a 3.84 (1.68) b 3.57 (1.56) a,b Win/successful trials 2.10 (1.28) a 1.86 (1.31) a 1.99 (1.42) a Win/unsuccessful trials 2.93 (1.54) a 3.68 (1.75) b 3.21 (1.34) a,b Surprise trials 1.49 (1.02) a 1.24 (0.52) a 1.43 (0.90) a Breakeven/successful trials 1.79 (1.26) a 1.51 (1.12) a 1.70 (0.93) a Breakeven/unsuccessful trials 2.47 (1.15) a 3.33 (1.67) b 3.05 (1.25) a,b Open in a new tab Note . a Means are reported with standard deviations in parentheses. Within rows, means with different subscripts differ at P < .05 in comparisons. Second, to control for individual differences in response style (i.e., tendency to select specific points on the scale), a difference score was created wherein anger to the success trials was subtracted from anger to the frustration trials. This score was then compared between conditions, and it revealed a significant main effect in a one-way ANOVA, F (2, 121) = 5.02, P = .008, η 2 p = 0.08. Follow-up comparisons revealed that the humility induction caused lower anger to frustration trials compared with the neutral induction, t (121) = 3.17, P < .001, d = 0.70, and the pride induction, t (121) = 1.76, P = .041, d = 0.41. Anger did not differ significantly between conditions for the success (win/success or breakeven success) or surprise trials (see Table 4 ). However, the humility induction caused lower anger to win-unsuccessful trials compared with the neutral induction, t (121) = 2.17, P = .032, d = 0.48, but not compared with the pride induction, t (121) = 0.76, P = .448, d = 0.18. In addition, the humility induction caused lower anger to breakeven-unsuccessful trials compared with the neutral induction, t (121) = 2.73, P = .007, d = 0.60, but not compared with the pride induction, t (121) = 1.74, P = .085, d = 0.41. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that a humility induction would reduce anger to frustrating events more than neutral and pride inductions. In addition, they suggest that humility may reduce anger to unsuccessful performances (failure experiences). P3b/TF1SF2 and RewP/TF4SF1 amplitudes The P3b component was analysed in a 6 (trial type) within-subjects X 3 (condition: humility, neutral, pride) between-subjects ANOVA. A significant main effect for trial type occurred, F (5, 570) = 71.25, P < .001, η 2 p = 0.38. The trial type by condition interaction was not significant, F (10, 570) = 0.27, P = .987, η 2 p = 0.00. Follow-up tests revealed that frustration trials evoked a larger P3b component compared to all trial types, ts (114) > 7.47, Ps < .001, except surprise, t (114) = 1.35, P = .179. The RewP component was analysed in a similar ANOVA. A significant main effect for trial type occurred, F (5, 570) = 16.52, P < .001, η 2 p = 0.13. The trial type by condition interaction was not significant, F (10, 570) = 0.86, P = .569, η 2 p = 0.01. Follow-up tests revealed that gain-successful, surprise, and frustration trials evoked larger RewPs compared to all other trial types, ts (114) > 3.91, Ps < .001. These three large RewP trial types did not differ from each other, Ps > .355. Factor loadings for TF1SF2 and TF4SF1 are presented in Fig. 3 . Figure 3. Open in a new tab PCA-derived ERPs. Note . A shows the grand average and topographic plot for TF4SF1/RewP. This topographic plot compares the average of frustration, surprise, and win/successful trials against the average of all other trials. B shows the grand average and topographic plot for TF1SF2/P3b. This topographic plot compares the average of frustration and surprise trials against the average of all other trials. Correlations of measures Next, we calculated correlations between self-reported anger and the ERP indices to the frustration (and surprise) trials, as was done in Angus and Harmon-Jones (2019) . To control for individual differences in P3b and anger responses, difference scores were created by subtracting responses to success trials from responses to frustration (and surprise) trials (e.g., self-reported anger to frustration trials minus self-reported anger to success trials). The P3b-derived component frustration difference score correlated positively with the anger difference score, r (115) = .27, P = .003. This result replicates Angus and Harmon-Jones’ (2019) result. It suggests that individuals who responded to frustration trials with a larger P3b also reported feeling angrier to frustration trials. The P3b-derived component surprise difference score was not correlated with the anger difference score, r (115) = .00, P = .961. This result also replicates Angus and Harmon-Jones’ (2019) result, and it suggests that individuals who responded to surprise trials with a larger P3b did not feel more anger to surprise trials. The P3b-derived component frustration difference score was positively correlated with the P3b-derived component surprise difference score, r (115) = .41, P < .001. Although this correlation is positive, it is far from 1.0, suggesting that these two P3b responses are assessing slightly related but also distinct psychophysiological responses. To control for individual differences in RewP responses, we needed to create a difference score using a RewP response that was more neutral and different in amplitude than the win-successful RewP, which was equal to the frustration RewP. To do this, we used the win-unsuccessful RewP, and subtracted responses to these unsuccessful trials from responses to frustration. The RewP-derived component frustration difference score did not correlate with the anger difference score, r (115) = .12, P = .205. Also, the RewP was not correlated with the P3b difference scores, rs (115) = .18 (frustration) and .02 (surprise), Ps > .053. Discussion The present study found that P3b amplitudes were increased to the violation of both positive (frustration) and negative (surprise) expectancies. However, this increase in P3b amplitude was only associated with feelings of anger when there was a positive expectancy violation (frustration). The violation of a negative expectancy (surprise) did not evoke anger that was associated with P3b. The current results add to research on the neurophysiology of anger (for reviews, see Angus et al. 2016 ). Some of this research has examined P3s associated with attentional engagement during frustrating tasks and found that children with conduct disorder or bipolar disorder show reduced P3s, suggesting that external frustration distracts them from the other task requiring attention ( Gatzke-Kopp et al. 2015 , Rich et al. 2005 , 2007 ). Additional research has focused on changes in neural activity following provocation, finding that anger produces greater left than right frontal cortical activity as measured by EEG frequencies (see review by Harmon-Jones and Gable 2018 ). Other work has found that RewPs to clear gains versus losses are positively associated with state-induced anger (Angus et al. 2015) as well as individual differences in chronic anger ( Tsypes et al. 2019 ). The current research extended this work by examining ERPs to frustrating outcomes specifically. The effect of humility on anger The current results partially supported the idea that induced humility reduces anger. Specifically, as compared to the neutral and pride inductions, the humility induction caused less self-reported anger to frustrating events. However, no condition differences occurred for P3b. Perhaps this dissociation between the results for self-reported anger and P3b to the frustrating events is due to differences between explicit and implicit emotional responses ( Lane 2008 , Quirin et al. 2009 , Winkielman and Berridge 2004 ). That is, self-reported anger may have tapped an explicit, conscious experience of emotion, whereas P3b may have tapped an implicit, unconscious emotional response ( Smith and Lane 2016 ). In the first 300–700 ms, participants may have first responded with an implicit emotional response to frustration trials that was detected with P3b, and this response did not differ as a function of condition. Later, this initial implicit emotional response was downregulated more by participants in the humility condition than in the pride and neutral conditions, and this may have resulted in lower self-reported anger. Such a possibility is consistent with evidence showing that inducing humility enhances self-control ( Tong et al. 2016 ). This study adds to recent research that has suggested that inducing humility can reduce anger to social events that are ambiguously conflictual ( Harmon-Jones, Szymaniak et al. 2025 ). Moreover, the current results are conceptually consistent with correlational studies that have shown that humble individuals are less likely to be anger-prone ( Harmon-Jones, Szymaniak et al. 2025 , Summerell et al. 2020 ). Comparing humility with pride Humility appeared to differ more from the neutral than pride condition in its effectiveness at reducing anger. This difference may have occurred because humility and pride are both positive emotions (relative to the neutral induction). Perhaps the positivity component of both pride and humility reduced anger somewhat, although humility had a stronger effect because of its unique characteristics. It is also possible that the writing tasks used in the pride condition may have unintentionally evoked humility for certain participants, or that the writing tasks used in the humility condition unintentionally evoked pride. See Supplementary Materials for evidence consistent with this interpretation. Another possible reason for the fact that the humility and pride conditions were closer to each other on anger than humility was to neutral is that the pride inductions did not distinguish between authentic and hubristic pride ( Tracy et al. 2009 ). Authentic pride is posited to stem from internal validation based on achievement, and hubristic pride is posited to stem from external validation and superiority over others ( Tracy et al. 2009 ). Perhaps some participants experienced more authentic pride than hubristic pride. Studies have found that trait hubristic pride is positively correlated with trait anger, while trait authentic pride is negatively correlated with trait anger ( Carver and Johnson 2010 ). Other research has found humility to be positively correlated with authentic pride ( Weidman et al. 2018 ). These results suggest that inductions of authentic pride may reduce anger. However, other scholars endorse a single-facet definition of pride, which defines pride as the pleasure derived from one’s personal achievements ( Kusano and Kemmelmeier 2022 ). One study found that the most commonly used hubristic pride inductions evoked higher self-reported authentic pride than hubristic pride ( Kusano and Kemmelmeier 2022 ). The induction tasks used for the pride condition in the current study were based on the single-facet definition of pride. Future research should aim to create inductions that clearly evoke authentic versus hubristic pride, and then test how these distinct forms of pride influence anger. ERPs to feedback The fact that humility and pride both share a positive valence leads to the question of whether positive affect has been found to influence ERPs to reward feedback. The evidence is mixed, with some studies finding that positive mood inductions increase RewP (Paul and Pourtois 2017) and other studies finding that they do not (Paul et al., 2020). A different set of studies has examined the effect of dosing individuals with positive-mood-altering drugs and assessing whether these drugs influence ERPs to reward feedback. The evidence here is mixed too, with methamphetamine (Haggarty et al. 2024) and LSD (Glazer et al. 2022) increasing feedback-related ERPs, but THC reducing feedback-related ERPs (Murray et al. 2022). Of course, other mechanisms besides positive affect may be responsible for these results, but it is also possible that these drugs create different types of positive affect that lead to these different responses, just as different situations create different types of positive affect. Do P3b and RewP tap similar psychophysiological responses to feedback in the current paradigm? As noted earlier, the RewP to frustration trials was not correlated with the P3b to frustration trials. Also, in the current study, P3bs were largest to frustration and surprise trials (and similar to each other), consistent with the idea that these P3bs were tapping responses to violations of expectancies. On the other hand, RewPs were largest to frustration, surprise, and win-successful trials (and similar to each other). This pattern of effects suggest that RewP may have been tapping prediction errors (violations of expectations in the frustration and surprise trials) as well as reward valuation (in the win-success and surprise trials). Different types of anger In the present study, participants also experienced greater anger when they failed to respond fast enough to the stimulus (to the win/unsuccessful and breakeven/unsuccessful trials) compared to when they responded fast enough (successful trials). This anger may have been experienced as inwardly directed anger, as this type of anger often arises in response to personal failures ( Plutchik 1995 ). Interestingly, self-reported anger was significantly lower after humility inductions compared to neutral inductions for these trial types. Conclusions and future directions The present research replicated and extended previous research using the anger incentive delay task ( Angus and Harmon-Jones 2019 ). It replicated previous results that showed that frustrating and surprising outcomes evoke larger P3bs, but that only frustrating outcomes evoke increased self-reported anger, which is associated with larger P3bs. It extended the past research by testing whether a humility induction would reduce self-reported anger and P3b to frustrating events. The results revealed that humility did reduce self-reported anger but did not influence P3b to the frustrating events. We speculated that this pattern of results may be explained by assuming that the P3b reflected an implicit emotional response that was not influenced by the humility induction, but the self-reported anger was a more explicit emotional response that was reduced by the humility induction via an increase in self-control processes. Future research is necessary to test this speculation with neural measures to assess the unfolding of self-control processes. The current research revealed that self-reported anger was also increased when participants failed to respond fast enough to the target stimulus, and that the humility induction decreased the anger associated with these failure experiences. We speculated that this anger may have been experienced as inwardly-directed anger in contrast to the outwardly-directed anger that may have occurred in the frustration trials. Future research is needed to test this speculation by perhaps examining (or manipulating) neural responses that may differentiate inward versus outward anger ( Consolini et al. 2022 , Kelley et al. 2013 , Zinner et al. 2008 ). Supplementary Material nsag013_Supplementary_Data nsag013_supplementary_data.docx (16.1KB, docx) Contributor Information Eddie Harmon-Jones, School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Mathews Bldg., Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia. Qian Wang, School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Mathews Bldg., Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia. Douglas J Angus, School of Psychology, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, 4226, Australia. Kinga Szymaniak, School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Mathews Bldg., Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia. Geneva Lorraine, School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Mathews Bldg., Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia. Sophie Quynh Chau Vu, School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales, Mathews Bldg., Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia. Cindy Harmon-Jones, School of Psychology, Western Sydney University, Bankstown, New South Wales, 2200, Australia. Author contributions Eddie Harmon-Jones (Conceptualization [lead], Data curation [equal], Formal analysis [equal], Funding acquisition [equal], Investigation [equal], Methodology [equal], Project administration [equal], Resources [lead], Supervision [lead], Validation [equal], Writing—original draft [equal], Writing—review & editing [equal]), Qian Wang (Data curation [equal], Formal analysis [equal], Investigation [equal], Writing—original draft [equal], Writing—review & editing [equal]), Douglas J. Angus (Formal analysis [supporting], Visualization [equal], Writing—review & editing [supporting]), Kinga Szymaniak (Data curation [equal], Investigation [equal], Methodology [equal], Writing—review & editing [equal]), Geneva Lorraine (Data curation [equal], Formal analysis [equal], Investigation [equal], Methodology [equal], Writing—review & editing [equal]), Sophie Quynh Chau Vu (Data curation [equal], Formal analysis [equal], Investigation [equal], Methodology [equal], Writing—review & editing [equal]), and Cindy Harmon-Jones (Conceptualization [equal], Funding acquisition [equal], Methodology [equal], Software [equal], Supervision [equal], Writing—review & editing [equal]) Supplementary data Supplementary data is available at SCAN online. Conflicts of interest The authors have no conflicts of interest. Funding This research was supported by a grant from the Australian Research Council (DP210102351). Data availability The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author. References Angus DJ, Schutter DJLG, Terburg D et al. A review of social neuroscience research on anger and aggression. In: Harmon-Jones E, Inzlicht M, (eds.), Social Neuroscience: Biological Approaches to Social Psychology. Abingdon, Routledge, 2016, 223–46. [ Google Scholar ] Angus DJ, Latham AJ, Harmon-Jones E et al. Electrocortical components of anticipation and consumption in a monetary incentive delay task. Psychophysiology 2017;54:1686–705. 10.1111/psyp.12913 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Angus DJ, Harmon-Jones E. The anger incentive delay task: a novel method for studying anger in neuroscience research. Psychophysiology 2019;56:e13290. https://doi-org.wwwproxy1.library.unsw.edu.au/10.1111/psyp.13290 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Ashton MC, Lee K. Honesty-humility, the big five, and the five-factor model. J Pers 2005;73:1321–53. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00351.x [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Bachkirov AA. Destructive managerial anger stemming from self‐immanent pride: is humility a solution? Business Ethics Env & Resp 2024;33:795–806. beer.12643. 10.1111/beer.12643 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Barlow MA, Wrosch C, Gouin J-P et al. Is anger, but not sadness, associated with chronic inflammation and illness in older adulthood? Psychol Aging 2019;34:330–40. 10.1037/pag0000348 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Baron RA. The reduction of human aggression: a field study of the influence of incompatible Reactions1. J Applied Social Pyschol 1976;6:260–74. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1976.tb01330.x [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Baron RA. Aggression-inhibiting influence of sexual humor. J Pers Soc Psychol 1978;36:189–97. 10.1037/0022-3514.36.2.189 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Berkowitz L, Troccoli BT. Feelings, direction of attention, and expressed evaluations of others. Cognition and Emotion 1990;4:305–25. 10.1080/02699939008408080 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] BioSemi. (Version 9.02) [Apparatus]. ActiveTwo. Amsterdam, Netherlands. https://www.biosemi.com Brain Products. (Version 2.3) [Computer software]. BrainVision Analyzer. Munich, Germany. https://www.brainproducts.com Bress JN, Hajcak G. Self-report and behavioral measures of reward sensitivity predict the feedback negativity. Psychophysiology 2013;50:610–6. 10.1111/psyp.12053 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Buss AH, Perry M. The aggression questionnaire. J Pers Soc Psychol 1992;63:452–9. 10.1037//0022-3514.63.3.452 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Carver CS, Johnson SL. Authentic and hubristic pride: differential relations to aspects of goal regulation, affect, and self-control. J Res Pers 2010;44:698–703. 10.1016/j.jrp.2010.09.004 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Cattell RB. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behav Res 1966;1:245–76. 10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Cheng JT, Tracy JL, Henrich J. Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evol Hum Behav 2010;31:334–47. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.004 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Consolini J, Sorella S, Grecucci A. Evidence for lateralized functional connectivity patterns at rest related to the tendency of externalizing or internalizing anger. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 2022;22:788–802. 10.3758/s13415-022-01012-0 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Davison GC, Williams ME, Nezami E et al. Relaxation, reduction in angry articulated thoughts, and improvements in borderline hypertension and heart rate. J Behav Med 1991;14:453–68. 10.1007/BF00845104 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Dien J. The ERP PCA toolkit: an open source program for advanced statistical analysis of event-related potential data. J Neurosci Methods 2010a;187:138–45. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2009.12.009 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Dien J. Evaluating two-step PCA of ERP data with Geomin, Infomax, Oblimin, Promax, and Varimax rotations. Psychophysiology 2010b;47:170–83. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00885.x [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Dunning D. The Dunning–Kruger effect: on being ignorant of one’s own ignorance. In:Olson JM, Zanna MP(eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 44). Academic Press, 2011, 247–96. 10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00005-6 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Gable PA, Poole BD, Harmon-Jones E. Anger perceptually and conceptually narrows cognitive scope. J Pers Soc Psychol 2015;109:163–74. 10.1037/a0039226 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Gatzke-Kopp LM, Willner CJ, Jetha MK et al. How does reactivity to frustrative non-reward increase risk for externalizing symptoms? Int J Psychophysiol 2015;98:300–9. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.04.018 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Gratton G, Coles MG, Donchin E. A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1983;55:468–84. 10.1016/0013-4694(83)90135-9 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Harmon-Jones C, Bastian B, Harmon-Jones E. The Discrete Emotions Questionnaire: a new tool for measuring state self-reported emotions. PLoS One 2016a;11:e0159915. 10.1371/journal.pone.0159915 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Harmon-Jones C, Bastian B, Harmon-Jones E. Detecting transient emotional responses with improved self-report measures and instructions. Emotion 2016b;16:1086–96. 10.1037/emo0000216 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Harmon-Jones E, Clarke D, Paul K et al. The effect of perceived effort on reward valuation: taking the reward positivity (RewP) to dissonance theory. Front Hum Neurosci 2020;14:157. 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00157 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Harmon-Jones E, Gable PA. On the role of asymmetric frontal cortical activity in approach and withdrawal motivation: an updated review of the evidence. Psychophysiology 2018;55:e12879. 10.1111/psyp.12879 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Harmon-Jones E, Harmon-Jones C. On the relationship of trait PANAS positive activation and trait anger: evidence of a suppressor relationship. J Res Pers 2010;44:120–3. 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.001 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Harmon-Jones E, Harmon-Jones C, Abramson L et al. PANAS positive activation is associated with anger. Emotion 2009;9:183–96. 10.1037/a0014959 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Harmon-Jones E, Harmon-Jones C, Amodio DM et al. Attitudes toward emotions. J Pers Soc Psychol 2011;101:1332. 1332–50. 10.1037/a0024951. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Harmon-Jones E, Harmon-Jones C, Summerell E. On the importance of both dimensional and discrete models of emotion. Behav Sci (Basel) 2017;7:Article 4. 10.3390/bs7040066 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Harmon-Jones E, Matis S, Angus DJ et al. Does effort increase or decrease reward valuation? Considerations from cognitive dissonance theory. Psychophysiology 2024;61:e14536. 10.1111/psyp.14536 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Harmon-Jones E, Willardt R, Harmon-Jones C. Discrete emotions of dissonance. Motiv Sci 2025;11:408–24. 10.1037/mot0000389 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Harmon-Jones E, Xu M, Szymaniak K et al. Humility and anger. Pers Individ Dif 2025;236:112980. 10.1016/j.paid.2024.112980 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Hennefield L, Gilbert K, Whalen D et al. The reward positivity shows increased amplitude and decreased latency with increasing age in early childhood. Dev Sci 2022;25:e13196. 10.1111/desc.13196 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Hortensius R, Schutter D, Harmon-Jones E. When anger leads to aggression: Induction of relative left frontal cortical activity with transcranial direct current stimulation increases the anger–aggression relationship. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 2012;7:342–7. https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/7/3/342/1663236 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Kaplan JT, Iacoboni M. Getting a grip on other minds: Mirror neurons, intention understanding, and cognitive empathy. Soc Neurosci 2006;1:175–83. 10.1080/17470910600985605 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Kelley NJ, Hortensius R, Harmon-Jones E. When anger leads to rumination: induction of relative right frontal cortical activity with transcranial direct current stimulation increases anger-related rumination. Psychol Sci 2013;24:475–81. 10.1177/0956797612457384 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Knutson B, Westdorp A, Kaiser E et al. FMRI visualization of brain activity during a monetary incentive delay task. Neuroimage 2000;12:20–7. 10.1006/nimg.2000.0593 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Kruse E, Chancellor J, Lyubomirsky S. State humility: measurement, conceptual validation, and intrapersonal processes. Self and Identity 2017;16:399–438. 10.1080/15298868.2016.1267662 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Kruse E, Chancellor J, Ruberton PM et al. An upward spiral between gratitude and humility. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 2014;5:805–14. 10.1177/1948550614534700 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Kusano K, Kemmelmeier M. The quest for (eliciting) hubristic pride: nomological shockwaves/networks, attributions, and social desirability across different experimental manipulations. Collabra: Psychology 2022;8:38634. 10.1525/collabra.38634 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] LaDonna KA, Ginsburg S, Watling C. “Rising to the level of your incompetence”: what physicians’ self-assessment of their performance reveals about the imposter syndrome in medicine. Acad Med 2018;93:763–8. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002046 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Lane RD. Neural substrates of implicit and explicit emotional processes: a unifying framework for psychosomatic medicine. Psychosom Med 2008;70:214–31. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Lavelock CR, Worthington EL, Davis DE et al. The quiet virtue speaks: an intervention to promote humility. J Psychol Theol 2014;42:99–110. 10.1177/009164711404200111 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Nieuwenhuis S, Holroyd CB, Mol N et al. Reinforcement-related brain potentials from medial frontal cortex: Origins and functional significance. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2004;28:441–8. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.05.003 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Plutchik R. Outward and inward directed aggressiveness: the interaction between violence and suicidality. Pharmacopsychiatry 1995;28 Suppl 2:47–57. 10.1055/s-2007-979620 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Polich J. Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clin Neurophysiol 2007;118:2128–48. 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.019 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Pontifex MB, Hillman CH, Polich J. Age, physical fitness, and attention: P3a and P3b. Psychophysiology 2009;46:379–87. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00782.x [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Proudfit GH. The reward positivity: from basic research on reward to a biomarker for depression. Psychophysiology 2015;52:449–59. 10.1111/psyp.12370 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Quirin M, Kazén M, Rohrmann S et al. Implicit but not explicit affectivity predicts circadian and reactive cortisol: using the implicit positive and negative affect test. J Pers 2009;77:401–25. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00552.x [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Rich BA, Schmajuk M, Perez-Edgar KE et al. The impact of reward, punishment, and frustration on attention in pediatric bipolar disorder. Biol Psychiatry 2005;58:532–9. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.01.006 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Rich BA, Schmajuk M, Perez-Edgar KE et al. Different psychophysiological and behavioral responses elicited by frustration in pediatric bipolar disorder and severe mood dysregulation. Am J Psychiatry 2007;164:309–17. 10.1176/ajp.2007.164.2.309 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Richard Y, Tazi N, Frydecka D et al. A systematic review of neural, cognitive, and clinical studies of anger and aggression. Curr Psychol 2022;42:1–17186. 10.1007/s12144-022-03143-6 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Sambrook TD, Goslin J. A neural reward prediction error revealed by a meta-analysis of ERPs using great grand averages. Psychol Bull 2015;141:213–35. 10.1037/bul0000006 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Smith R, Lane RD. Unconscious emotion: a cognitive neuroscientific perspective. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2016;69:216–38. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.08.013 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Summerell E, Harmon-Jones C, Denson TF et al. Humility is associated with less aggressive motivation. Pers Individ Dif 2020;158:109837. 10.1016/j.paid.2020.109837 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Szymaniak K, Harmon-Jones SK, Harmon-Jones E. Further examinations of attitudes toward discrete emotions, with a focus on attitudes toward anger. Motiv Emot 2023;47:476–93. 10.1007/s11031-022-09998-3 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Tong EMW, Tan KWT, Chor AAB et al. Humility facilitates higher self-control. J Exp Soc Psychol 2016;62:30–9. 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.008 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Tracy JL, Cheng JT, Robins RW et al. Authentic and hubristic pride: the affective core of self-esteem and narcissism. Self and Identity 2009;8:196–213. 10.1080/15298860802505053 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Tracy JL, Robins RW, Tangney JP. (2013). The Self-Conscious Emotions: Theory and Research. Guilford Publications. [ Google Scholar ] Tsypes A, Angus DJ, Martin S et al. Trait anger and the reward positivity. Pers Individ Dif 2019;144:24–30. 10.1016/j.paid.2019.02.030. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Van Tongeren DR, Stafford J, Hook JN et al. Humility attenuates negative attitudes and behaviors toward religious out-group members. J Posit Psychol 2016;11:199–208. 10.1080/17439760.2015.1037861 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Verleger R, Jaskowski P, Wauschkuhn B. Suspense and surprise: on the relationship between expectancies and P3. Psychophysiology 1994;31:359–69. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1994.tb02444.x [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Volk AA, Schiralli K, Xia X et al. Adolescent bullying and personality: a cross-cultural approach. Pers Individ Dif 2018;125:126–32. 10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.012 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Weidman AC, Cheng JT, Tracy JL. The psychological structure of humility. J Pers Soc Psychol 2018;114:153–78. 10.1037/pspp0000112 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Williams L, DeSteno D. Pride and perseverance: the motivational role of pride. J Pers Soc Psychol 2008;94:1007–17. 10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.1007 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Winkielman P, Berridge KC. Unconscious emotion. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2004;13:120–3. 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00288.x [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Yan L, Keh HT, Murray KB. Feeling the values: How pride and awe differentially enhance consumers’ sustainable behavioral intentions. J of the Acad Mark Sci 2024;52:75–96. 10.1007/s11747-023-00928-4 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Zinner LR, Brodish AB, Devine PG et al. Anger and asymmetrical frontal cortical activity: evidence for an anger–withdrawal relationship. Cogn Emot 2008;22:1081–93. 10.1080/02699930701622961 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials nsag013_Supplementary_Data nsag013_supplementary_data.docx (16.1KB, docx) Data Availability Statement The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author. Articles from Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (1.5 MB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top