Toward an Understanding of the Determinants of Anger.

Abstract

Research bearing on several popular conceptions of the major determinants of anger arousal indicates that the particular appraisals often identified as causes of anger frequently only serve to affect the intensity of the anger that is generated. Research into effects of physical pain or other physically unpleasant conditions or involving social stresses suggests that decidedly aversive conditions are a major spur to anger. Experiments are also reviewed showing that anger-related muscular movements can also lead to anger-related feelings, memories, cognitions, and autonomic responses. Alternative explanations for the findings are discussed. The authors urge emotion theorists to widen their methodology and analyses so that they give careful, detailed attention to the many different factors that can influence anger.A great many people are angry at one time or another. After surveying studies dating back to World War I, Averill (1982) concluded that "Depending upon how records are kept, most people report becoming mildly to moderately angry anywhere from several times a day to several times a week" (p. 1146). Perhaps because this emotion is so common, 1 specific definitions of this term often vary in detail (see Averill, 1982;Kassinove, 1995, for reviews of the many different usages of this word), and there are many different, and even opposing, cultural beliefs prescribing how and when this affective state should be managed.Although there certainly is no shortage of research articles dealing with anger, investigators inquiring into the development and functioning of emotions would do well to devote more of their effort and ingenuity to the study of this particular affective state. It obviously is a socially very important emotion, one that has attracted a great deal of attention in the mass media as well as in the various health fields, but it also presents emotion theorists with a number of intriguing conceptual questions. As just one example, there is the often-assumed relationship between hedonic valence and approach-avoidance inclinations. According to Watson, Wiese, Vaidya, and Tellegen (1999), positive affect is typically associated with approach tendencies, whereas negative arousal is usually linked to an urge to avoid the instigating stimulus. Anger seems to be relatively unique in this regard and is often associated with approach rather than with avoidance inclinations (see Harmon-Jones & Allen, 1998;Harmon-Jones & Sigelman, 2001). Then too, research into the conditions under which anger is aroused can also touch on the metatheoretical controversy as to whether emotions can be evoked independently of cognitions. Although we do not want to revive the now well-worn argument as to just what is involved in the concept cognition, if one adopts the relatively restricted definition favored by Izard (1993) and Zajonc Leonard Berkowitz and Eddie Harmon-Jones, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.We thank the individuals who provided valuable comments on previous versions of this article: Jack B...

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

“…Although some evidence suggests that no additional appraisals are needed for anger to occur (Berkowitz & Harmon-Jones, 2004), many theorists do incorporate additional elements.…”

Anger, disgust, and the negative aesthetic emotions: Expanding an appraisal model of aesthetic experience.

“…Associated with aggression and selfassertion, anger motivates an assertive response when important goals are threatened (Kuppens, Van Mechelen, Smits, & De Boeck, 2003). Anger is an approach-oriented emotion (Berkowitz & Harmon-Jones, 2004)-when angry, people try to deal with the threat to their goals. Associated with revulsion, disgust motivates the avoidance of contamination (Olatunji & Sawchuk, 2005;Rozin & Fallon, 1987), be it physical (e.g., ingesting noxious food) or symbolic (e.g., a defiling person, idea, or object; Rozin, Lowery, Imada, & Haidt, 1999).…”

The determinants and expression of computer-related anger

“…Such factors include the fact that socialized prescriptions concerning the display of anger are less likely to be in force when using computers, probable lower embarrassment at displaying anger because the machine cannot register one's loss of emotional control, and the lack of a need to worry both about avoiding closing down channels of communication and avoiding provoking anger in the target, with the attendant realization that fear of retaliation is less of a consideration (fear of retribution being well recognized as a major reason as to why people suppress anger and restrain aggressive impulses -Berkowitz & Harmon-Jones, 2004). Also, for the same reasons, while such a proposition seemed unlikely to be supported from anecdotal observations of people's behavior when they are angry with computers, as another test of the assumption that physical aggression is fundamental to anger as argued by Izard (1977), the following hypothesis was forwarded:…”