Anger and Disgust
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



Are appraisals necessary?


Strain Theory
Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis
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
Basic Emotions ―
Universal Cognitive Appraisals?
(Scherer, 1997)
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 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)
Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis
Perception
that we are being prevented from obtaining a
goal increases the probability of anger and aggression.
Frustration
Aggression
(Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer & Sears, 1939)
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)
Aversive Event


Intentional
Controllable
Lazarus et al. (1970)
Aversive
Threat to
Event
well-being
Anger
Anger
Berkowitz (1989)
Aversive
Event
Negative
affect
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
punishment
Private
Rejection with
punishment
Private
Rejection w/o
punishment
29%
0%
0%
100%
27%
0%
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?

Behavior changes?

Subjective feelings?

Subjective feelings?

Physiological changes?

Physiological changes?

Emotion?

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
Aversive

Negative
affect
Anger /
Aggression
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)
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 EVENT
NEGATIVE AFFECT
Lower-Order,
Automatic Processing
AGGRESSION-RELATED
TENDENCIES
ESCAPE-RELATED TENDENCIES
RUDIMENTARY ANGER (blends of
feelings, irritation-annoyance-anger)
RUDIMENTARY FEAR
Higher-Order ,
Controlled Processing
IRRITATION OR ANNOYANCE
OR ANGER
Differentiated
Feelings
FEAR
AVERSIVE EVENT
NEGATIVE AFFECT
Unpleasantness is the
only cognitive appraisal!
Lower-Order,
Automatic Processing
AGGRESSION-RELATED
TENDENCIES
ESCAPE-RELATED TENDENCIES
RUDIMENTARY ANGER (blends of
feelings, irritation-annoyance-anger)
RUDIMENTARY FEAR
Higher-Order ,
Controlled Processing
IRRITATION OR ANNOYANCE
OR ANGER
Differentiated
Feelings
FEAR
AVERSIVE EVENT
NEGATIVE AFFECT
Lower-Order,
Automatic Processing
Approach and avoidance
tendencies activated at
same time
AGGRESSION-RELATED
TENDENCIES
ESCAPE-RELATED TENDENCIES
RUDIMENTARY ANGER (blends of
feelings, irritation-annoyance-anger)
RUDIMENTARY FEAR
Higher-Order ,
Controlled Processing
IRRITATION OR ANNOYANCE
OR ANGER
Differentiated
Feelings
FEAR
AVERSIVE EVENT
NEGATIVE AFFECT
Lower-Order,
Automatic Processing
Genetics, past learning,
and situational influences
determine strength of
each tendency
AGGRESSION-RELATED
TENDENCIES
ESCAPE-RELATED TENDENCIES
RUDIMENTARY ANGER (blends of
feelings, irritation-annoyance-anger)
RUDIMENTARY FEAR
Higher-Order ,
Controlled Processing
IRRITATION OR ANNOYANCE
OR ANGER
Differentiated
Feelings
FEAR
AVERSIVE EVENT
NEGATIVE AFFECT
Lower-Order,
Automatic Processing
Basic feelings of anger
and fear – not
completely developed
emotions!
AGGRESSION-RELATED
TENDENCIES
ESCAPE-RELATED TENDENCIES
RUDIMENTARY ANGER (blends of
feelings, irritation-annoyance-anger)
RUDIMENTARY FEAR
Higher-Order ,
Controlled Processing
IRRITATION OR ANNOYANCE
OR ANGER
Differentiated
Feelings
FEAR
AVERSIVE EVENT
NEGATIVE AFFECT
Lower-Order,
Automatic Processing
Appraisals, social norms,
expected consequences
determine anger OR
fear
AGGRESSION-RELATED
TENDENCIES
ESCAPE-RELATED TENDENCIES
RUDIMENTARY ANGER (blends of
feelings, irritation-annoyance-anger)
RUDIMENTARY FEAR
Higher-Order ,
Controlled Processing
IRRITATION OR ANNOYANCE
OR ANGER
Differentiated
Feelings
FEAR
AVERSIVE EVENT
NEGATIVE AFFECT
Lower-Order,
Automatic Processing
Differentiation,
intensification,
suppression of
rudimentary
experiences
AGGRESSION-RELATED
TENDENCIES
ESCAPE-RELATED TENDENCIES
RUDIMENTARY ANGER (blends of
feelings, irritation-annoyance-anger)
RUDIMENTARY FEAR
Higher-Order ,
Controlled Processing
IRRITATION OR ANNOYANCE
OR ANGER
Differentiated
Feelings
FEAR
Appraise as
unpleasant/painful
Pushed off bike
Example
Lower-Order,
Automatic Processing
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
Higher-Order ,
Controlled Processing
IRRITATION OR ANNOYANCE
OR ANGER
Differentiated
Feelings
N/A
Appraise as
unpleasant/painful
Pushed off bike
Lower-Order,
Automatic Processing
Genetic predispositions
make aggression
tendencies for anger
stronger than fear
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
Higher-Order ,
Controlled Processing
IRRITATION OR ANNOYANCE
OR ANGER
Differentiated
Feelings
N/A
Appraise as
unpleasant/painful
Pushed off bike
Lower-Order,
Automatic Processing
I interpret the event as
intentional and
controllable – This must
be anger!
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
Higher-Order ,
Controlled Processing
IRRITATION OR ANNOYANCE
OR ANGER
Differentiated
Feelings
N/A
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




CNA Evidence
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)
7
6
5
4
3
2
Anger References
Fear References
1
Low Discomfort
Neutral
Anxiety
Frustration
Neutral
Anxiety
0
Frustration
Number coded references
during story
Physical discomfort activates angry
thoughts, and then angry feelings
CNA Evidence
High Discomfort
(Monteith et al., 1990, unpublished)
7
In frustration conditions, high
or low discomfort did not
influence number angry
references.
6
5
4
3
2
Anger References
Fear References
1
Low Discomfort
Neutral
Anxiety
Frustration
Neutral
Anxiety
0
Frustration
Number coded references
during story
Physical discomfort activates angry
thoughts, and then angry feelings
CNA Evidence
High Discomfort
(Monteith et al., 1990, unpublished)
7
In anxiety conditions,
experience of high discomfort
decreased fear references.
6
5
4
3
2
Anger References
Fear References
1
Low Discomfort
Neutral
Anxiety
Frustration
Neutral
Anxiety
0
Frustration
Number coded references
during story
Physical discomfort activates angry
thoughts, and then angry feelings
CNA Evidence
High Discomfort
(Monteith et al., 1990, unpublished)
7
In anxiety conditions,
experience of high discomfort
increased anger references.
6
5
4
3
2
Anger References
Fear References
1
Low Discomfort
Neutral
Anxiety
Frustration
Neutral
Anxiety
0
Frustration
Number coded references
during story
Physical discomfort activates angry
thoughts, and then angry feelings
CNA Evidence
High Discomfort
(Monteith et al., 1990, unpublished)
Physical discomfort activates angry
thoughts, and then angry feelings
CNA Evidence

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)
General Model of
Affective Aggression
Aggressive Cognitions
Hostile thoughts
Hostile memories
Aggression scripts
Acute Situational Variables
Pain, discomfort
Frustration
Attack
Affect
Anger
Hostility
Arousal
Physiological and Perceived
Primary Appraisals
Interpretation of Situation and
Of Affect
Secondary Appraisals
Re-examine situation
Coping alternatives
Likely consequences
Behavioral Choice
(Anderson, 1995)
Comparing Anger Theories

Strain Theory – Relative deprivation causes anger

Classic F-A Hypothesis (Dollard et al., 1939)


Berkowitz’s CNA Model


Frustration causes anger!
Negative affect causes anger!
Anderson’s General Model of Affective Aggression

Primary appraisals (and later secondary appraisals) cause
anger!