Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
[12]
[14]
Three types of anger are recognized by psychologists: The first form of anger,
named "hasty and sudden anger" by Joseph Butler, an 18th-century English bishop,
is connected to the impulse for self-preservation. It is shared between both human
and non-human animals, and it occurs when the animal is tormented or
trapped. The second type of anger is named "settled and deliberate" anger and
is a reaction to perceived deliberate harm or unfair treatment by others. These two
forms of anger are episodic. The third type of anger is called dispositional and is
related more to character traits than to instincts or cognitions. Irritability, sullenness
and churlishness are examples of the last form of anger. [15]
Anger can potentially mobilize psychological resources and boost determination
toward correction of wrong behaviors, promotion of social justice, communication of
negative sentiment and redress of grievances. It can also facilitate patience. In
contrast, anger can be destructive when it does not find its appropriate outlet in
expression. Anger, in its strong form, impairs one's ability to process information
and to exert cognitive control over their behavior. An angry person may lose his/her
objectivity, empathy, prudence or thoughtfulness and may cause harm to others. [10]
[16][17]
There is a sharp distinction between anger and aggression (verbal or physical,
direct or indirect) even though they mutually influence each other. While anger can
activate aggression or increase its probability or intensity, it is neither a necessary
nor a sufficient condition for aggression.[10]
Neuropsychological perspective[edit]
Extension of the Stimuli of the Fighting Reactions. At the beginning of life the human
infant struggles indiscriminately against any restraining force, whether it be another
human being or a blanket which confines his movements. There is no inherited
susceptibility to social stimuli, as distinct from other stimulation, in anger. At a later
date the child learns that certain actions, such as striking, scolding, and screaming,
are effective toward persons, but not toward things. In adults, although the infantile
response is still sometimes seen, the fighting reaction becomes fairly well limited to
stimuli whose hurting or restraining influence can be thrown off by physical
violence.[18]
Differences between related concepts[edit]
The words annoyance and rage are often imagined to be at opposite ends of an
emotional continuum: mild irritation and annoyance at the low end and fury or
murderous rage at the high end. Rage problems are conceptualized as "the inability
to process emotions or life's experiences" [19] either because the capacity to regulate
emotion (Schore, 1994)[20]has never been sufficiently developed or because it has
been temporarily lost due to more recent trauma. Rage is understood as "a whole
load of different feelings trying to get out at once" (Harvey, 2004) [21] or as raw,
undifferentiated emotions, that spill out when another life event that cannot be
processed, no matter how trivial, puts more stress on theorganism than it can bear.
Anger when viewed as a protective response or instinct to a perceived threat is
considered as positive. The negative expression of this state is known as
aggression.[22] Acting on this misplaced state is Rage due to possible potential errors
in perception and judgement.
One should also consider the context or the bigger picture, e.g an aggressive action
of manipulation may in fact work to help an individual, although a contradiction in a
PC sense, an important distinction should be made when considering the context of
anger when it promotes a positive effect that outweighs the negative. For instance,
a display or anger to shock a individual to stop sunbathings intensely, this may save
their life, and would be therefore considered socially and morally acceptable in
every sense.
Six dimensions of anger expression[edit]
Anger expression can take on many more styles than passive or aggressive. Ephrem
Fernandez has identified six bipolar dimensions of anger expression. They relate to
the direction of anger, its locus, reaction, modality, impulsivity, and objective.
Coordinates on each of these dimensions can be connected to generate a profile of
a person's anger expression style. Among the many profiles that are theoretically
possible in this system, are the familiar profile of the person with explosive anger,
profile of the person with repressive anger, profile of the passive aggressive person,
and the profile of constructive anger expression. [24]
Causes[edit]
People feel angry when they sense that they or someone they care about has been
offended, when they are certain about the nature and cause of the angering event,
when they are certain someone else is responsible, and when they feel they can still
influence the situation or cope with it.[25] For instance, if a person's car is damaged,
they will feel angry if someone else did it (e.g. another driver rear-ended it), but will
feel sadness instead if it was caused by situational forces (e.g. a hailstorm) or guilt
and shame if they were personally responsible (e.g. he crashed into a wall out of
momentary carelessness). Psychotherapist Michael C. Graham defines anger in
terms of our expectations and assumptions about the world. [26] Graham states anger
almost always results when we are caught up "... expecting the world to be different
than it is".[27]
Usually, those who experience anger explain its arousal as a result of "what has
happened to them" and in most cases the described provocations occur
immediately before the anger experience. Such explanations confirm the illusion
that anger has a discrete external cause. The angry person usually finds the cause
instance, if you are trying to persuade someone that a tax increase is necessary, if
the person is currently feeling angry you would do better to use an argument that
elicits anger ("more criminals will escape justice") than, say, an argument that
elicits sadness ("there will be fewer welfare benefits for disabled children"). [35] Also,
unlike other negative emotions, which focus attention on all negative events, anger
only focuses attention on anger-causing events.
Anger can make a person more desiring of an object to which his anger is tied. In a
2010 Dutch study, test subjects were primed to feel anger or fear by being shown
an image of an angry or fearful face, and then were shown an image of a random
object. When subjects were made to feel angry, they expressed more desire to
possess that object than subjects who had been primed to feel fear. [36]
As a strategy[edit]
As with any emotion, the display of anger can be feigned or exaggerated. Studies
by Hochschild and Sutton have shown that the show of anger is likely to be an
effective manipulation strategy in order to change and design attitudes. Anger is a
distinct strategy of social influence and its use (i.e. belligerent behaviors) as a goal
achievement mechanism proves to be a successful strategy. [13][14]
Larissa Tiedens, known for her studies of anger, claimed that expression of feelings
would cause a powerful influence not only on the perception of the expresser but
also on theirpower position in the society. She studied the correlation between
anger expression and social influence perception. Previous researchers, such as
Keating, 1985 have found that people with angry face expression were perceived as
powerful and as in a high social position.[37] Similarly, Tiedens et al. have revealed
that people who compared scenarios involving an angry and a sad character,
attributed a higher social status to the angry character.[38] Tiedens examined in her
study whether anger expression promotes status attribution. In other words,
whether anger contributes to perceptions or legitimization of others' behaviors. Her
findings clearly indicated that participants who were exposed to either an angry or a
sad person were inclined to express support for the angry person rather than for a
sad one. In addition, it was found that a reason for that decision originates from the
fact that the person expressing anger was perceived as an ability owner, and was
attributed a certain social status accordingly. [37]
Showing anger during a negotiation may increase the ability of the anger expresser
to succeed in negotiation. A study by Tiedens et al. indicated that the anger
expressers were perceived as stubborn, dominant and powerful. In addition, it was
found that people were inclined to easily give up to those who were perceived by
them as powerful and stubborn, rather than soft and submissive. [38] Based on these
findings Sinaceur and Tiedens have found that people conceded more to the angry
side rather than for the non-angry one.[39]
A question raised by Van Kleef et al. based on these findings was whether
expression of emotion influences others, since it is known that people use emotional
information to conclude about others' limits and match their demands in negotiation
accordingly. Van Kleef et al. wanted to explore whether people give up more easily
to an angry opponent or to a happy opponent. Findings revealed that participants
tended to be more flexible toward an angry opponent compared with a happy
opponent. These results strengthen the argument that participants analyze the
opponent's emotion to conclude about their limits and carry out their decisions
accordingly.[40]
Coping strategies[edit]
Main article: Anger management
According to Leland R. Beaumont, each instance of anger demands making a
choice.[41] A person can respond with hostile action, including overt violence, or they
can respond with hostile inaction, such as withdrawing or stonewalling. Other
options include initiating a dominance contest; harboring resentment; or working to
better understand and constructively resolve the issue.
According to R. Novaco, there are a multitude of steps that were researched in
attempting to deal with this emotion. In order to manage anger the problems
involved in the anger should be discussed, Novaco suggests. The situations leading
to anger should be explored by the person. The person is then tried to be imagerybased relieved of his or her recent angry experiences. [12][42]
Conventional therapies for anger involve restructuring thoughts and beliefs to bring
about a reduction in anger. These therapies often come within the schools of CBT
(orCognitive Behavioural Therapies) like modern systems such as REBT (Rational
Emotive Behavior Therapy). Research shows that people who suffer from excessive
anger often harbor and act on dysfunctional attributions, assumptions
and evaluations in specific situations. It has been shown that with therapy by a
trained professional, individuals can bring their anger to more manageable levels.
[43]
The therapy is followed by the so-called "stress inoculation" in which the clients
are taught "relaxation skills to control their arousal and various cognitive controls to
exercise on their attention, thoughts, images, and feelings. They are taught to see
the provocation and the anger itself as occurring in a series of stages, each of which
can be dealt with."[12]
The Skills-deficit model states that poor social skills is what renders a person
incapable of expressing anger in an appropriate manner. [44] Social skills training has
been found to be an effective method for reducing exaggerated anger by offering
alternative coping skills to the angry individual. Research has found that persons
who are prepared for aversive events find them less threatening, and excitatory
reactions are significantly reduced.[45] In a 1981 study, that used modeling, behavior
rehearsal, and videotaped feedback to increase anger control skills, showed
increases in anger control among aggressive youth in the study. [46] Research
conducted with youthful offenders using a social skills training program (aggression
replacement training), found significant reductions in anger, and increases in anger
control.[47] Research has also found that antisocial personalities are more likely to
learn avoidance tasks when the consequences involved obtaining or losing tangible
rewards. Learning among antisocial personalities also occurred better when they
were involved with high intensity stimulation. [48] Social Learning Theory states that
positive stimulation was not compatible with hostile or aggressive reactions.
[49]
Anger research has also studied the effects of reducing anger among adults with
antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), with a social skills program approach that
used a low fear and high arousal group setting. This research found that low fear
messages were less provocative to the ASPD population, and high positive arousal
stimulated their ability to concentrate, and subsequently learn new skills for anger
reduction.[50]
Cognitive behavioral affective therapy[edit]
A new integrative approach to anger treatment has been formulated by Ephrem
Fernandez (2010)[51] Termed CBAT, for cognitive behavioral affective therapy, this
treatment goes beyond conventional relaxation and reappraisal by adding cognitive
and behavioral techniques and supplementing them with affective techniques to
deal with the feeling of anger. The techniques are sequenced contingently in three
phases of treatment: prevention, intervention, and postvention. In this way, people
can be trained to deal with the onset of anger, its progression, and the residual
features of anger.
Suppression[edit]
Modern psychologists point out that suppression of anger may have harmful effects.
The suppressed anger may find another outlet, such as a physical symptom, or
become more extreme.[12][52] John W. Fiero cites Los Angeles riots of 1992 as an
example of sudden, explosive release of suppressed anger. The anger was then
displaced as violence against those who had nothing to do with the matter. Another
example of widespread deflection of anger from its actual cause
toward scapegoating, Fiero says, was the blaming of Jews for the economic ills
of Germany by the Nazis.[11]
However, psychologists have also criticized the "catharsis theory" of aggression,
which suggests that "unleashing" pent-up anger reduces aggression. [53]
Dual thresholds model[edit]
Anger expression might have negative outcomes for individuals and organizations
as well, such as decrease of productivity [54] and increase of job stress,[55] however it
could also have positive outcomes, such as increased work motivation, improved
relationships, increased mutual understanding etc. (for ex. Tiedens, 2000). [56] A Dual
[10]
Seneca addresses the question of mastering anger in three parts: 1. how to avoid
becoming angry in the first place 2. how to cease being angry and 3. how to deal
with anger in others.[12] Seneca suggests, to avoid becoming angry in the first place,
that the many faults of anger should be repeatedly remembered. One should avoid
being too busy or deal with anger-provoking people. Unnecessary hunger or thirst
should be avoided and soothing music be listened to. [12] To cease being angry,
Seneca suggests "one to check speech and impulses and be aware of particular
sources of personal irritation. In dealing with other people, one should not be too
inquisitive: It is not always soothing to hear and see everything. When someone
appears to slight you, you should be at first reluctant to believe this, and should
wait to hear the full story. You should also put yourself in the place of the other
person, trying to understand his motives and any extenuating factors, such as age
or illness."[12] Seneca further advises daily self-inquisition about one's bad habit.
[12]
To deal with anger in others, Seneca suggests that the best reaction is to simply
keep calm. A certain kind of deception, Seneca says, is necessary in dealing with
angry people.[12]
Galen repeats Seneca's points but adds a new one: finding a guide and teacher can
help the person in controlling their passions. Galen also gives some hints for finding
a good teacher.[12] Both Seneca and Galen (and later philosophers) agree that the
process of controlling anger should start in childhood on grounds of malleability.
Seneca warns that this education should not blunt the spirit of the children nor
should they be humiliated or treated severely. At the same time, they should not be
pampered. Children, Seneca says, should learn not to beat their playmates and not
to become angry with them. Seneca also advises that children's requests should not
be granted when they are angry.[12]
Medieval era[edit]
During the period of the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages, philosophers
elaborated on the existing conception of anger, many of whom did not make major
contributions to the concept. For example, many medieval philosophers such as Ibn
Sina (Avicenna), Roger Bacon and Thomas Aquinas agreed with ancient
philosophers that animals cannot become angry. [12] On the other hand, alGhazali (also known as "Algazel" in Europe), who often disagreed with Aristotle and
Ibn Sina (Avicenna) on many issues, argued that animals do possess anger as one of
the three "powers" in their Qalb ("heart"), the other two being appetite and impulse.
He also argued that animal will is "conditioned by anger and appetite" in contrast to
human will which is "conditioned by the intellect."[64] A common medieval belief was
that those prone to anger had an excess of yellow bile or choler (hence the word
"choleric").[12] This belief was related to Seneca's belief that "red-haired and redfaced people are hot-tempered because of excessive hot and dry humors."
By gender
Wrath was sinful because of the social problems it caused, sometimes even
homicide. It served to ignore those who are present, contradicts those who are
absent, produces insults, and responds harshly to insults that are received.
[65]
Aristotle felt that anger or wrath was a natural outburst of self- defense in
situations where people felt they had been wronged. Aquinas felt that if anger was
justified, it was not a sin. For example, "He that is angry without cause, shall be in
danger; but he that is angry with cause, shall not be in danger: for without anger,
teaching will be useless, judgments unstable, crimes unchecked. Therefore to be
angry is not always an evil."[66]
The concept of wrath contributed to a definition of gender and power. Many
medieval authors in 1200 agreed the differences between men and women were
based on complexion, shape, and disposition. Complexion involved the balance of
the four fundamental qualities of heat, coldness, moistness, and dryness. When
various combinations of these qualities are made they define groups of certain
people as well as individuals. Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Galen all agreed on that, in
terms of biology and sexual differentiation, heat was the most important of the
qualities because it determined shape and disposition. Disposition included a
balance of the previous four qualities, the four elements and the four humors. For
example, the element of fire shared the qualities of heat and dryness: fire
dominated in yellow bile or choler, meaning a choleric person was more or hot and
dry than others. Hot and dry individuals were active, dominant, and aggressive. The
opposite was true with the element of water. Water, is cold and moist, related
closely to phlegm: people with more phlegmatic personalities were passive and
submissive. While these trait clusters varied from individual to individual most
authors in the Middle Ages assumed certain clusters of traits characterized men
more than women and vice versa. [67]
Women
Scholars posted that females were seen by authors in the Middle Ages to be more
phlegmatic (cold and wet) than males, meaning females were more sedentary and
passive than males.[67] Women's passive nature appeared "natural" due to their lack
of power when compared to men. Aristotle identified traits he believed women
shared: female, feminine, passive, focused on matter, inactive, and inferior. Thus
medieval women were supposed to act submissively toward men and relinquish
control to their husbands.[67]However Hildegard of Bingen believed women were fully
capable of anger. While most women were phlegmatic, individual women under
certain circumstances could also be choleric.
Men
Medieval scholars believed most men were choleric, or hot and dry. Thus they were
dominant and aggressive. (Barton) Aristotle also identified characteristics of men:
male, masculine, active, focused on form, potent, outstanding, and superior. Men
were aware of the power they held. Given their choleric "nature", men exhibited hot
temperatures and were quick to anger. [67] Peter of Albano once said, "The male's
spirit, is lively, given to violent impulse; [it is] slow getting angry and slower being
calmed." Medieval ideas of gender assumed men were more rational than women.
Masculinity involved a wide range of possible behaviors, and men were not angry all
the time. Every man's humoralbalance was different, some men were strong, other
weak, also some more prone to wrath then others. [67]
Control methods[edit]
Maimonides considered being given to uncontrollable passions as a kind of illness.
Like Galen, Maimonides suggested seeking out a philosopher for curing this illness
just as one seeks out a physician for curing bodily illnesses. Roger Bacon elaborates
Seneca's advices. Many medieval writers discuss at length the evils of anger and
the virtues of temperance. In a discussion of confession, John Mirk, an English 14thcentury Augustinian writer, tells priests how to advise the penitent by considering
the spiritual and social consequences of anger: [12]
On the other hand, Ahmed ibn Sahl al-Balkhi classified anger (along with
aggression) as a type of neurosis,[70] while al-Ghazali (Algazel) argued that anger
takes form in rage, indignation and revenge, and that "the powers of
the soul become balanced if it keeps anger under control." [71]