1. Anger and Disgust

2. ANGERRRRRRR!  Video Video  Start around :45 seconds  What are the events that make us angry?

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. Basic Emotions ― Universal Facial Expressions Brow Lowerer Upper Lid Raiser Lid Tightener Lip Tightener

7. (Scherer, 1997) Basic Emotions ― Universal Cognitive Appraisals?

8. Two Classic Theories of Anger  Strain Theory  (Cloward & Ohlin; Merton, 1957)  Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis  (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer & Sears, 1939)

9. 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)

10. Dollard’s (Yale Approach) Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis  Frustration: an unexpected external blockage of an anticipated goal attainment  Aggression: in response to blocked goal, an action in which the goal is to injure another (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer & Sears, 1939)

11. Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis  Perception that we are being prevented from obtaining a goal increases the probability of anger and aggression. (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer & Sears, 1939) FrustrationAggression

12. 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 The Angry Elf (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer & Sears, 1939)

13. 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)

14. 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

15. 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

16. Appraisals Cause Anger …but…are they necessary?  Frustration / Goal Obstruction  Closeness in Time  External Cause

17. 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)

18. % Participants who rejected confederate Not Justified Justified (hearing defect) No Frustration (Control) Public Rejection with punishment 29%0% Private Rejection with punishment 100%27%0% Private Rejection w/o punishment 100%50%0% (Burnstein & Worchel, 1962)

19. 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?

20. Closeness in Time -Goal-Gradient PrincipleGoal-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)

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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)

25. 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

26. 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!

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. Pushed off bike Appraise 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

35. Pushed off bike Appraise 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

36. Pushed off bike Appraise 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!

37. 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

38. 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

39. Physical discomfort activates angry thoughts, and then angry feelings (Monteith et al., 1990, unpublished) CNA Evidence

40. Physical discomfort activates angry thoughts, and then angry feelings (Monteith et al., 1990, unpublished) CNA Evidence In frustration conditions, high or low discomfort did not influence number angry references.

41. Physical discomfort activates angry thoughts, and then angry feelings (Monteith et al., 1990, unpublished) CNA Evidence In anxiety conditions, experience of high discomfort decreased fear references.

42. Physical discomfort activates angry thoughts, and then angry feelings (Monteith et al., 1990, unpublished) CNA Evidence In anxiety conditions, experience of high discomfort increased anger references.

43. 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

44. Pain, discomfort Frustration Attack Behavioral Choice Interpretation of Situation and Of Affect Primary Appraisals Re-examine situation Coping alternatives Likely consequences Secondary Appraisals Anger Hostility Affect Physiological and Perceived Arousal Hostile thoughts Hostile memories Aggression scripts Aggressive Cognitions Acute Situational Variables (Anderson, 1995) General Model of Affective Aggression

45. 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!