Upload
clifford-watkins
View
224
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ANGERRRRRRR! Video Start around :45 seconds
What are the events that make us angry?
Top 9 Things that make people angry (at least in the U.K.) People who smell Rude shop assistants Foreign call centers Stepping in dog poo People driving close behind you People who cough without covering their
mouths People who eat with their mouth open Slow internet connections Poor customer service
Anger’s 4 Components Physiology:
SNS Activation Brain Areas: amygdala, prefrontal cortex
Subjective Feelings: high arousal, high unpleasantness
Appraisals: goal obstruction, controllability, unpleasantness
Behavior: Approach and Facial Expression
Today’s Outline Distinct Emotions – Looking for universality.
Classic Appraisal Theories Strain Theory Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis
Are appraisals necessary? Frustration, Closeness in Time, External Causation
Recent Appraisal Theories Cognitive Neoassociationistic Model of Anger General Model of Affective Aggression
Basic Emotions ―Universal Facial Expressions
Brow Lowerer
Upper Lid Raiser
Lid Tightener
Lip Tightener
Two Classic Theories of Anger Strain Theory
(Cloward & Ohlin; Merton, 1957)
Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer & Sears, 1939)
Strain Theory Social system prevents people from attaining
economic and social goals
This causes anger and crime
Relative, Deprivation (not absolute deprivation)
(Cloward & Ohlin; Merton, 1957)
Dollard’s (Yale Approach) Frustration-Aggression HypothesisFrustration: an unexpected external blockage of an anticipated goal attainmentAggression: in response to blocked goal, an action in which the goal is to injure another
(Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer & Sears, 1939)
Frustration-Aggression HypothesisPerception that we are being prevented from obtaining a goal increases the probability of anger and aggression.
(Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer & Sears, 1939)
Frustration
Aggression
F-A Hypothesis: What determines intensity of aggression? Strength of drive that was blocked
Degree of interference
Number of times experience the frustration The Angry Elf
(Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer & Sears, 1939)
F-A Hypothesis: Direct or Displaced Aggression Direct: anger directed toward source of
frustration
Displaced: anger directed toward lower status target Lynchings and Cotton Prices, r = -.72
(Hovland & Sears, 1940; Green, Glaser, & Rich, 1988)
Stressors and child abuse (Straus, 1980; Berkowitz, 2003)
(Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer & Sears, 1939)
Criticisms of Dollard’s F-A Hypothesis Focused on hostile (“emotional”) aggression
Instrumental Aggression All aggression does not stem from frustration The goal of aggression is not always to inflict harm
Not every frustration causes anger
Goal obstruction is not the only appraisal External, Closeness in Time, Unfairness
Modifications to F-A Hypothesis – It’s not just frustration!
Weiner (1985)
Lazarus et al. (1970)
Berkowitz (1989)
Aversive Event
Negative affect Anger
Aversive Event
Intentional Controllable
Anger
Aversive Event
Threat to well-being Anger
Appraisals Cause Anger…but…are they necessary? Frustration / Goal Obstruction
Closeness in Time
External Cause
Not every frustration causes anger Justified Frustration condition
Confederate’s interference legitimate (i.e., hearing defect)
NonJustified Frustration Condition Confederate’s interference not legitimate (i.e., no hearing
defect)
No Frustration Control Condition
End of Study: Participants evaluated confederate in 3 formats Public evaluation in front of group Private Self-report, with punishment Private Self-report, without punishment
(Burnstein & Worchel, 1962)
% Participants who rejected confederate
Not Justified
Justified(hearing defect)
No Frustration (Control)
Public Rejection with
punishment29% 0% 0%
Private Rejection with
punishment100% 27% 0%
Private Rejection w/o punishment
100% 50% 0%
(Burnstein & Worchel, 1962)
Find a line…Then, cut in front of the last and the first person.Last Person
First Person
Behavior changes?
Subjective feelings?
Physiological changes?
Emotion?
Behavior changes?
Subjective feelings?
Physiological changes?
Emotion?How did the emotion components vary for the person last in line versus the second in line?
Closeness in Time -Goal-Gradient Principle Experimenter deliberately cut into line
Manipulation #1: Person was at front or rear of line
Assumptions for people at front of line
Subjects in front more aggressive – WHY?
(Harris, 1974)
Is an External Cause Required? Many say Yes!
An external event must be perceived of causing the offense
Dollard, Lazarus, Appraisal Theorists
Some say No! Anger can be caused even when we do not
perceive an external entity as the cause of the offense.
Ex: headaches, pain People who attribute failure to the self, report
anger Berkowitz, Anderson
Is an External Cause Required? Ps’ worked on a jigsaw puzzle in the presence of a
confederate posed as a participant Manipulation #1:
Group 1: confederate disturbed participants (external cause)
Group 2: puzzle unsolvable (internal cause) Group 3: control, nonfrustrated
DV: Later, participants given opportunity to shock confederates (similar to Milgram’s study)
Results by Greatest Level of Shocks: Group 1, 2, 3
Is an External Cause Required? Can we be angry toward ourselves?
Shame Elicited by negative judgment of entire self Positively correlated with anger indices
Guilt Elicited by bad act Negatively correlated with anger indices
Two Recent Models of Anger Cognitive Neoassociationistic Model of Anger
(CNA; Berkowtiz, 1989) Focuses on Negative Affect
General Model of Affective Aggression (Anderson, 1995) Primary Appraisals (quick, automatic) Secondary Appraisals (slower, conscious)
Berkowitz’s Modifications to F-A Hypothesis
More unpleasant conditions, greater anger Lab and Naturalistic Studies
After goal blocked, pleasant experiences reduce aggression
NA greatest predictor of anger (beyond controllability and intentionality)
Aversive
Negative
affect
Anger /
Aggression
Cognitive Neoassociationistic Model of Anger (CNA; Berkowtiz, 1989) Associative Network links following components
together Feelings Thoughts Memories Behavioral reactions, including facial expressions Physiological reactions Aggressive cues in situation
Activation of one component in network leads to activation of remaining components
We experience associative networks for fear and anger at the same time!
AVERSIVE EVENTNEGATIVE AFFECT
AGGRESSION-RELATED TENDENCIES
ESCAPE-RELATED TENDENCIES
RUDIMENTARY ANGER (blends of feelings, irritation-
annoyance-anger)RUDIMENTARY FEAR
IRRITATION OR ANNOYANCE OR ANGER
FEAR
Lower-Order, Automatic Processing
Higher-Order ,Controlled Processing
Differentiated Feelings
AVERSIVE EVENTNEGATIVE AFFECT
AGGRESSION-RELATED TENDENCIES
ESCAPE-RELATED TENDENCIES
RUDIMENTARY ANGER (blends of feelings, irritation-
annoyance-anger)RUDIMENTARY FEAR
IRRITATION OR ANNOYANCE OR ANGER
FEAR
Unpleasantness is the only cognitive
appraisal!Lower-Order, Automatic Processing
Higher-Order ,Controlled Processing
Differentiated Feelings
AVERSIVE EVENTNEGATIVE AFFECT
AGGRESSION-RELATED TENDENCIES
ESCAPE-RELATED TENDENCIES
RUDIMENTARY ANGER (blends of feelings, irritation-
annoyance-anger)RUDIMENTARY FEAR
IRRITATION OR ANNOYANCE OR ANGER
FEAR
Approach and avoidance tendencies
activated at same time
Lower-Order, Automatic Processing
Higher-Order ,Controlled Processing
Differentiated Feelings
AVERSIVE EVENTNEGATIVE AFFECT
AGGRESSION-RELATED TENDENCIES
ESCAPE-RELATED TENDENCIES
RUDIMENTARY ANGER (blends of feelings, irritation-
annoyance-anger)RUDIMENTARY FEAR
IRRITATION OR ANNOYANCE OR ANGER
FEAR
Genetics, past learning, and
situational influences
determine strength of each tendency
Higher-Order ,Controlled Processing
Lower-Order, Automatic Processing
Differentiated Feelings
AVERSIVE EVENTNEGATIVE AFFECT
AGGRESSION-RELATED TENDENCIES
ESCAPE-RELATED TENDENCIES
RUDIMENTARY ANGER (blends of feelings, irritation-
annoyance-anger)RUDIMENTARY FEAR
IRRITATION OR ANNOYANCE OR ANGER
FEAR
Basic feelings of anger and fear – not completely
developed emotions!
Higher-Order ,Controlled Processing
Lower-Order, Automatic Processing
Differentiated Feelings
AVERSIVE EVENTNEGATIVE AFFECT
AGGRESSION-RELATED TENDENCIES
ESCAPE-RELATED TENDENCIES
RUDIMENTARY ANGER (blends of feelings, irritation-
annoyance-anger)RUDIMENTARY FEAR
IRRITATION OR ANNOYANCE OR ANGER
FEAR
Appraisals, social norms, expected
consequences determine anger
OR fear
Higher-Order ,Controlled Processing
Lower-Order, Automatic Processing
Differentiated Feelings
AVERSIVE EVENTNEGATIVE AFFECT
AGGRESSION-RELATED TENDENCIES
ESCAPE-RELATED TENDENCIES
RUDIMENTARY ANGER (blends of feelings, irritation-
annoyance-anger)RUDIMENTARY FEAR
IRRITATION OR ANNOYANCE OR ANGER
FEAR
Differentiation, intensification, suppression of rudimentary experiences
Higher-Order ,Controlled Processing
Lower-Order, Automatic Processing
Differentiated Feelings
Pushed off bikeAppraise as
unpleasant/painful
Thoughts about aggression, memories about fighting, increase in arousal, angry
face
Thoughts about fleeing, memories of being hurt,
increase in arousal, fear face
RUDIMENTARY ANGER (irritation-annoyance-anger)
RUDIMENTARY FEAR
IRRITATION OR ANNOYANCE OR ANGER
N/A
Higher-Order ,Controlled Processing
Lower-Order, Automatic Processing
Differentiated Feelings
Example
Pushed off bikeAppraise as
unpleasant/painful
Thoughts about aggression, memories about fighting, increase in arousal, angry
face
Thoughts about fleeing, memories of being hurt,
increase in arousal, fear face
RUDIMENTARY ANGER (irritation-annoyance-anger)
RUDIMENTARY FEAR
IRRITATION OR ANNOYANCE OR ANGER
N/A
Higher-Order ,Controlled Processing
Lower-Order, Automatic Processing
Differentiated Feelings
Genetic predispositions
make aggression tendencies for anger
stronger than fear
Pushed off bikeAppraise as
unpleasant/painful
Thoughts about aggression, memories about fighting, increase in arousal, angry
face
Thoughts about fleeing, memories of being hurt,
increase in arousal, fear face
RUDIMENTARY ANGER (irritation-annoyance-anger)
RUDIMENTARY FEAR
IRRITATION OR ANNOYANCE OR ANGER
N/A
Higher-Order ,Controlled Processing
Lower-Order, Automatic Processing
Differentiated Feelings
I interpret the event as intentional and controllable – This
must be anger!
Cognitive-Neoassociationistic Model Goal obstruction not required
Negative affect is the main source of anger and affective aggression
Initial appraisal of unpleasantness required
Other cognitive appraisals not required
Anger, irritation, annoyance represent different intensities of the same emotion
CNA Evidence
Physical discomfort activates other components of anger network
Manipulation #1: Physical Discomfort Low: rested nondominant arm on table for 6 min High: held nondominant arm outward and unsupported for
6 min
Manipulation #2: After 3 minutes, asked to describe themselves in one of following situations Frustrated Anxiety-provoking Neutral
DV: Coded story for anger and fear references At end of 6 minutes, rated current feelings
(Monteith et al., 1990, unpublished)
CNA Evidence
Physical discomfort activates angry thoughts, and then angry feelings
Fru
stra
tio
n
An
xie
ty
Ne
utr
al
Fru
stra
tio
n
An
xie
ty
Ne
utr
al
Low Discom-fort
High Discom-fort
01234567
Anger ReferencesFear References
Nu
mb
er
co
ded
refe
ren
ces
du
rin
g s
tory
(Monteith et al., 1990, unpublished)
CNA Evidence
Physical discomfort activates angry thoughts, and then angry feelings
Fru
stra
tio
n
An
xie
ty
Ne
utr
al
Fru
stra
tio
n
An
xie
ty
Ne
utr
al
Low Discom-fort
High Discom-fort
01234567
Anger ReferencesFear References
Nu
mb
er
co
ded
refe
ren
ces
du
rin
g s
tory
(Monteith et al., 1990, unpublished)
CNA Evidence
In frustration conditions, high or low discomfort
did not influence number angry references.
Physical discomfort activates angry thoughts, and then angry feelings
Fru
stra
tio
n
An
xie
ty
Ne
utr
al
Fru
stra
tio
n
An
xie
ty
Ne
utr
al
Low Discom-fort
High Discom-fort
01234567
Anger ReferencesFear References
Nu
mb
er
co
ded
refe
ren
ces
du
rin
g s
tory
(Monteith et al., 1990, unpublished)
CNA Evidence
In anxiety conditions, experience of high
discomfort decreased fear references.
Physical discomfort activates angry thoughts, and then angry feelings
Fru
stra
tio
n
An
xie
ty
Ne
utr
al
Fru
stra
tio
n
An
xie
ty
Ne
utr
al
Low Discom-fort
High Discom-fort
01234567
Anger ReferencesFear References
Nu
mb
er
co
ded
refe
ren
ces
du
rin
g s
tory
(Monteith et al., 1990, unpublished)
CNA Evidence
In anxiety conditions, experience of high
discomfort increased anger references.
Physical discomfort activates angry thoughts, and then angry feelings
Physical discomfort activated ideas and feelings related to anger
Thoughts about being in the unpleasant situation made anger-related ideas more available…
…So, people felt more anger and less fear in high discomfort-anxiety situation
High discomfort participants reported highest level of angry feelings
(Monteith et al., 1990, unpublished)
CNA Evidence
Pain, discomfortFrustration
Attack
Behavioral Choice
Interpretation of Situation and
Of Affect
Primary Appraisals
Re-examine situationCoping alternativesLikely consequences
Secondary Appraisals
AngerHostility
Affect
Physiological and Perceived
Arousal
Hostile thoughtsHostile memoriesAggression scripts
Aggressive Cognitions
Acute Situational Variables
(Anderson, 1995)
General Model of Affective
Aggression
Comparing Anger Theories Strain Theory – Relative deprivation causes anger
Classic F-A Hypothesis (Dollard et al., 1939) Frustration causes anger!
Berkowitz’s CNA Model Negative affect causes anger!
Anderson’s General Model of Affective Aggression Primary appraisals (and later secondary appraisals)
cause anger!