Anger

Anger The psychologist interested in anger will at first be surprised to find relatively little empirical research on this topic. Indeed, much of the research with the key word anger is in reality focusing on aggressive reactions and behaviors or on perception of angry faces and expressions. This is probably due in part because anger has historically been studied together with aggression and rage in animal behavior studies, and a functionalist view of 13 emotions in terms of phylontogenetic continuity (Darwin, 1872, 1965) is still inspiring much recent work, such as the neuropsychological quest into primitive brain structures (e.g., Harmon-Jones & Allen, 1998). According to Averill (1982) and Tavris (1989), however, equating anger and aggression is a mistake. Both animals and humans engage in aggressive behavior. Anger, however, has many complex social and cognitive antecedents and functions1, thereby making it a uniquely human emotion (Tavris, 1989). Averill (1982) also found that aggression is by no means the dominant response of humans to anger. Adult’s narrative accounts included reference to a large range of non-aggressive behaviors and cognitive reappraisal. To study anger, therefore, one must go beyond the observation of aggression. Averill (1982, 1983) was one of the pioneers to systematically study the psychological aspects of anger. Much of this research consisted of large survey studies to find out what the “person on the street” had to say about the antecedents, experience, and reactions to anger and his research shed light upon some important aspects of this rather complex emotion. From these findings, three points seemed of particular importance. First, he conducted a large survey study to determine the antecedents of anger by asking respondent to describe a situation in which they were made angry. After a careful content analysis, he came to the following conclusion: The major issue for the person in the street is not the specific nature of the instigating event; it is the perceived justification for the instigators behavior. Anger, for the person in the street is an accusation...Over 85% of the episodes described by angry persons involved either an act that they considered voluntary and unjustified (59%) or else a potentially avoidable accident (e.g., due to negligence or lack of foresight, 28%) ... To summarize, the typical instigation to anger is a value judgment. More than anything else, anger is an attribution of blame (Averill, 1983, pp. 1150). Second, he found that: 1 Although anger can in some cases lead to aggression, this is only one of the many possible behavioral consequences (Berkowitz, 1993). In addition, aggression could stem from other emotional phenomena, such as fear, and the presence of this particular behavior should not lead to the assumption that anger was experienced (Tavris, 1989). 14 There can be little doubt that anger is primarily an interpersonal emotion. Of course, at times we all do become angry at inanimate objects, and at impersonal circumstances; but that is not normative, and following such episodes, we may feel a little silly or embarrassed. One reason why anger is directed primarily at other persons is that people are typically the major source of pain and frustration in their lives. But there is perhaps an even more important reason…the typical episode of anger involves an attribution of responsibility, an accusation, so to speak, that the target has done something wrong. It follows that the target of anger must be a person or object…to whom responsibility can be assigned (Averill, 1982, pp. 166). Finally, Averill (1982) found that the most common target of anger is a loved one, friend, or acquaintance. In addition, it seems that the target of anger is likely to be an equal or peer, or else someone over whom we have authority. In order to successfully study anger, therefore, one should conduct the research within social interactions, and appropriate participant pools would be acquaintances, close friends, couples, or work colleagues. Lazarus and Smith (1988; Smith & Lazarus, 1993) postulate that anger can be explained on two levels of analysis. At the molecular level, appraisals concerning high goal relevance, obstruction of a goal, and threat to ego-identity are important for the elicitation of anger. The other important appraisal component is blame, which depends upon who, if anyone, should be taken for accountable. At the molar level, emotions can be defined as particular core relational themes, which give the individual a global adaptive significance of an event for him or her specifically. Core relational themes are “…greater than the sum of the appraisal components that imply them, and have properties and adaptational implications that cannot be easily derived from considering just the appraisal components taken individually” (Smith & Lazarus, 1993, pp. 260). The core relational theme of anger is other-blame, whereas self-blame is the core relational theme for guilt (Lazarus, 1991). Other appraisal theorists have made similar prediction. Smith and Ellsworth (1985) found that participants described anger as an unpleasant state with a considerable amount of anticipated effort, a high degree of certainty about the situation, strong attributions of human agency and other responsibility / control, and unfairness. They also found that contempt was 15 associated with appraisals similar to anger, and was typically reported within interpersonal relationships. Finally, frustration shared many of the same appraisals with anger, although it was also associated with uncertainty about the situation and a mixture of situational control and other responsibility/control. Frustration was also frequently reported in failure situations in which success was expected. Frijda et al. (1989) found that anger was associated with high unpleasantness, unfairness, certainty, importance, familiarity, and very high other responsibility. Contempt had a similar appraisal structure. Roseman (2001) predicted that anger is likely to occur when an individual appraises an event as inconsistent with a motive, blocking a goal, caused by another person, and when there is relatively high control potential. Finally, Scherer (2001) makes the predictions shown in Table 1.2. Table 1.2: Scherer’s (2001) predictions for cold and hot anger Appraisal Dimension cold anger / irritation hot anger / rage 1. Relevance Detection Novelty Suddenness Low High Familiarity Open Low Predictability Medium Low Intrinsic Pleasantness Open Open Goal Relevance Medium High 2. Implication Assessment Causal Attribution Agent Open Other Motive Intentional / Negligence Intentional Outcome Probability Check Very high Very high Discrepancy from Expectation Open Dissonant Goal/Need Conduciveness Obstruct Obstruct Urgency Medium High 3. Coping Potential Determination Control High High Power Medium High Adjustment High High 4. Normative Significance Evaluation a.) Internal Standards Open Open b.) External Standards Low Low Note. Open = several different results of the respective appraisal check are compatible with the emotion concerned. Scherer differentiates between cold anger / irritation and hot anger / rage, making slightly different predictions for each. First, there are subtle differences in the three novelty subchecks, suddenness, familiarity, and predictability, where, for example, the suddenness 16 check shifts from weak for cold anger to high for hot anger. Generally speaking, however, the differences within the novelty check occur at the most primitive level of sensory-motor processing and are primarily discernable with neuropsychological measurement techniques. Because the present research will not be able to measure such fine-grained differences, we will not discuss these differences in more detail. Second, the predictions for goal relevance, urgency, and power shift from medium for cold anger to high for hot anger. Many theorists consider irritation to be a weaker form of anger, and this minor shift is probably indicative of the intensity level. The most important differences are found within the causal attribution check. Whereas hot anger is definitely associated with external agency and intentional motive, cold anger leaves the agency prediction open – indicating that it may not be as strongly associated with other accountability than hot anger and could also be due to internal or chance attributions. Finally, irritation may also be due to negligent, and not only intentional, behavior. Recently, Kuppens, Mechelen, Smits, and De Boeck (2003) examined the relationship between appraisal and anger to determine which appraisals might be specific, necessary, and sufficient to understand this emotion. They examined goal obstruction, other accountability, unfairness, and control and found that anger, compared to fear, shame, and sadness, had a distinctive appraisal pattern: goal obstacle, other accountability, and unfairness. Other accountability was also found to be a specific appraisal for anger. In summary, appraisal theorist generally agree that the most important elements for anger are an attribution of causality of an important obstructed goal to an external agent that has acted in an intentional manner in an otherwise controllable situation. Intentionality means that anger will usually be directed towards other persons or animals, or at oneself, because inanimate objects cannot act intentionally. Most importantly, other accountability - or external, intentional agency - or blame – seems to be a fundamental appraisal component for anger; although the evidence discussed above indicates that there are subtle differences between some of the emotions within the “anger family” (anger, irritation, contempt, and frustration). The next section will therefore focus on the causal attribution check, which is a sub-check of Scherer’s (2001) implication assessment check, and largely inspired by the attribution theories put forth by Heider (1958), Kelley (1967), and Weiner (1979, 1986). 17