Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications.

Abstract

The authors review a range of evidence concerning the motivational underpinnings of anger as an affect, with particular reference to the relationship between anger and anxiety or fear. The evidence supports the view that anger relates to an appetitive or approach motivational system, whereas anxiety relates to an aversive or avoidance motivational system. This evidence appears to have 2 implications. One implication concerns the nature of anterior cortical asymmetry effects. The evidence suggests that such asymmetry reflects direction of motivational engagement (approach vs. withdrawal) rather than affective valence. The other implication concerns the idea that affects form a purely positive dimension and a purely negative dimension, which reflect the operation of appetitive and aversive motivational systems, respectively. The evidence reviewed does not support that view. The evidence is, however, consistent with a discrete-emotions view (which does not rely on dimensionality) and with an alternative dimensional approach.Keywords: anger, approach, appetitive system, avoidance, threat system Recent years have seen a surge of interest in emotional experience (e.g., Barrett, Niedenthal, & Winkielman, 2005;Dalgleish & Power, 1999;Davidson, Scherer, & Goldsmith, 2003;Frijda, 2007; Lane & Nadel, 2000;Lewis & Haviland-Jones, 2000;Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988;Panksepp, 1998; Rottenberg & Johnson, 2007; Scherer, Schorr, & Johnstone, 2001). Views of emotion vary considerably, in several respects. As one example, some people view emotions as a set of distinct modular entities, often considered basic emotions (e.g., Ekman, 1992;Izard, 1991;Izard & Ackerman, 2000;Levenson, 1994Levenson, , 1999Panksepp, 1998;Roseman, 1991). Others hold that affects are best understood by reference to underlying dimensions (e.g., Barrett, 2006;Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1999;Carver & Scheier, 1998;Davidson, 1998;Gray, 1994a;Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1992Russell, 2003;Russell & Carroll, 1999a, 1999bWatson, Wiese, Vaidya, & Tellegen, 1999;Yik, Russell, & Barrett, 1999). AngerThis article focuses on one specific affect-anger. Specifically, it addresses the relationship of this affect to broad motivational tendencies of approach and avoidance, and it considers implications of that relationship for two areas of thought and research. We begin with a few words about definitions.Sometimes the terms affect, feeling, and emotion are treated as interchangeable (e.g., Isen, 2000); sometimes they are distinguished from each other (e.g., Fredrickson, 2001;. Affect is generally used to imply a hedonic experience, a sense of valence, a subjective sense of positivity or negativity arising from an event. When many use the word emotion, it is with that sense in mind. As Frijda (2000) put it, "For many theorists, the essence of emotion is feeling, and notably 'affect,' here used in the sense of a feeling of pleasure or pain . . . ." (p. 63). As Ortony et al. (1988) put it, emotions are ". . valenced reactions to events, agents, or objects . ." (p. 13). T...

Fearful, surprised, happy, and angry facial expressions modulate gaze-oriented attention: Behavioral and ERP evidence

“…This might reflect the anticipation of a positive item, which has been linked to left hemispheric activation (Davidson & Irwin, 1999). Anticipation could also explain why anger did not modulate the congruency effect on P1 amplitude, as in this case the outcome is ambiguous (Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009). Although not significant, there was a tendency for the P1 congruency effect to be localized to the right hemisphere for targets following fearful and surprised faces (Figure 3(a)), which is also consistent with the hypothesis of a lateralized P1 congruency effect linked to the anticipation of the outcome depending on the valence of the face cue.…”

Pleasure junkies all around! Why it matters and why ‘the arts’ might be the answer: a biopsychological perspective

“…motivating the choice to approach or to avoid) [13][14][15]. It triggers the autonomous nervous system through neurochemical action to prepare the adequate physiological state for this fast behavioural response [16][17][18][19]. Any behavioural response triggered directly by the A-system will, therefore, be a rather coarse reaction (e.g.…”

The grammar of anger: Mapping the computational architecture of a recalibrational emotion

“…Therefore, anger -particularly in the early stages of its deployment-motivates approach toward the target of anger (an anomaly among negatively valenced emotions; Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009). Furthermore, anger signals its onset to the target with a highly recognizable (Fox et al, 2000;Öhman, Lundqvist, & Esteves, 2001) and universal facial expression (Ekman, 1973).…”