Psychology Stuff: Anger Management

Contents:
1) aggression solutions that don't work
2) solutions that do work
3) aggressive triggers/cues
4) mitigating information
5) sources of aggression

First, some quick definitions:
This post deals with anti-social aggression: aggression which violates social norms. There are two types.

Instrumental anti-social aggression is aggression used as a means to an end (in cold blood), where as hostile anti-social aggression is aggression based in anger (not goal-oriented). This post deals specifically with the hostile kind.

There is also pro-social aggression, which is aggression required by social norms (what the police do), and sanctioned aggression which is allowed by the social norms, such as aggression while playing a sport, or in self-defense. Neither of these will be addressed here.

Provocation is anything which is an event which is irritating or offensive and makes the person want to respond similarly (be irritating or offensive back). In order to provoke someone, the provocation must be perceived as deliberate. If the person legitimately thinks you didn't mean to piss them off, they'll still be pissed, but will not act aggressively. Note that it does not have to actually be deliberate, all that matters is that the person PERCEIVE it that way.


1. Aggressions solutions that don't work.
When you are angry, do NOT punch the wall. This is a huge misconception that has spread like wildfire.

This was based on the idea of catharsis; that an emotion must be expressed and let out to relieve it. This may be true of things like sadness, suggesting that when you are sad, bawling your eyes out will help. However, this is not the case for all emotions, such as anger.

When you are angry, studies have demonstrated time and time again that attempting to relieve your aggression through catharsis only increases it. Punching a wall or your pillow, screaming, playing an aggressive sport; all of these will only serve to make you more angry and increase your chances of acting out aggressively in the future. If getting it out actually helped, then wouldn't football players and hockey players almost never get in fights off the field? Of course, they might be naturally more aggressive, which draws them to the sport, but despite this the studies still show an increase in their aggression levels. (Bushman, Baumiester, & Stack, 1999).

Another non-solution is punishment. Even Skinner, the man who insisted that we are ruled by a system of punishment and reward, admitted that punishment will not reduce levels of aggression. If your child throws a tantrum, or won't share, or skips school, throw their ass in time out. If they punch the shit out of another kid, you're going to need to find a different solution. As a parent, you might choose to punish them simply on principle (I know I would), but know that that alone will not reduce their aggression levels. They need to learn how to regulate their aggressive emotions more properly, and punishment simply does not do that.



2. Solutions that do work
The solution: incompatible responses. There are certain emotions you can feel at the same time, like happy and sad. We all know that as the experience referred to as 'bitter sweet.' However, some cannot happen at the same time, such as anxiety and calm. You cannot feel them both; instead one wins out over the other.

Aggression has three incompatible emotions: sympathy, humor, and mild sexual arousal.

Baron (1983) did the coolest study ever. Through a series of people with walkie talkies watching the approaching vehicles, he managed to get a car first in line at a stop light, containing a researcher, where a single car with a male driver in it and no passengers would pull up behind them.
The picture depicts what happens when a male with no other passengers drives by the assistant. If the car contained a female driver or a number of people then the assistant did not tell them to go.


When the red light turned green, the person in the first car (researcher) would not drive forward until the person behind them (participant) honked, or until it had turned red again and then back to green, meaning you either honk or sit through one entire green light and both red lights. This was done in a less busy part of town, so that only the 'participant' would be behind the researcher.

In the control condition, where this is all that happened, 90% honked their horn.
In the first experimental condition, a woman in rather non-descript, non-provocative dress crossed the street just before it turned green. 89% honked at the car.
In the second condition, a woman in a full leg cast crossed the street before it turned green. Only 57% honked. That means 43% sat through an entire green light, and let it turn back to red, without honking once at the car who had not moved.
In the third, a man in a clown suit ran across the intersection throwing confetti before the green light. Only 50% honked.
In the fourth, a woman in an extremely provocative outfit crossed the street. 47% honked.

Over HALF of the men did not honk through an entire green light because they could not get angry while feeling other emotions.
Can you imagine sitting through a green light and not honking?

Now there's a reason why I said mild sexual arousal.
Baron and Belle (1977) found that higher levels of arousal actually increase male aggression.
They brought participants in and had them write an essay. They claimed that another participant was writing an essay as well, and that they would grade each other's papers. In reality that 'other participant' was a confederate (someone who's in on the experiment).
The participants wrote their essay, and then went to a waiting room. Then they were brought into a different room with the confederate. They pick a number to see who goes first, but it's set up so the confederate goes first. The confederate then critiques the participants essay most harshly. They are down-right rude in their response. Also, they have the ability to shock the person for every grammar error and spelling error they find, and other poor writing skills they demonstrated, and they do so often. Naturally the participant is now pissed. The participants then get to do the same to the confederate while grading their essay.

In the control, the participants read boring magazines in the waiting room. The severity of shock they administered to the confederate was about 4.6 volts.
In the first experimental condition, they looked at the Sports illustrated swimsuit issue in the waiting room. They issued a shock of about 3.4 volts.
In the second, they saw pictures of naked women. They delivered a shock of 3.4 volts.
The third group saw pictures of couples having sex. They averaged 2.8 volts.
The fourth group read erotic passages (detailed descriptions of people having sex) which is known to be one of the most erotic forms of stimuli (better even than pictures). They averaged 4 volts.

Being a little turned on negates anger. Being massively turned on brings you right back to where you started.

So, if you need to calm down, try watching a funny movie, talking to someone who had a shitty day, or looking at some playboy (don't start master-baiting, then you'll get really aroused and get aggressive again haha)


This is the only solution I know about. I know nothing about anger management therapies and classes and how effective they are. This is just what I learned about in social psych. My apologies if you were hoping for that.


3. Aggressive triggers/cues

Berkowitz and LePage (1967) showed that guns can serve as a cue to aggression.
They used a similar procedure to the study above. However, in one condition the participants were given harsh criticism (provoked), and in the other they were given mild criticism of their essay (unprovoked).
In the waiting room, some sat in a room with nothing to look at (no cue), some had badminton equipment on the shelves (non-aggressive cue), and others saw guns on the shelves (aggressive cue). The results looked like this:
(number of shocks participant gave confederate was the dependent variable)

provoked unprovoked
aggressive cue: lots of shocks very few or no shocks
non-aggressive cue: a few shocks very few or no shocks

no cue: a few shocks very few or no shocks

As we can see, seeing a gun did not automatically make the person aggressive. However, seeing a gun and then being provoked made them more aggressive than when they were simply provoked without a cue, or with a neutral cue. (This is called an interaction effect)

The same exact results were found in a study where participants in the waiting room saw a movie with pirates or a movie about a track star. While seeing the violent pirate movie didn't make them more aggressive when unprovoked, it did make them more aggressive when provoked.

Conclusion: guns, violent movies, etc. do make you more aggressive, but either way you need to be provoked. They're not going to make you lose your shit over nothing.



4. Mitigating information

Johnson and Rule (1986) conducted a similar experiment where participants met the confederate before grading the essays. They then wrote their essays and the confederate was a harsh grader. Then they took a break and talked, and then the participants got to grade the confederate.
In one condition the confederate told the participant that they were having an awful day right when they first met them. The story was that they had just failed their MCAT's meaning they would not be able to follow their dream of going to med. school. During the break they discussed random things or nothing at all.
In the other condition, the confederate told the participant nothing of consequence when they first met them, and then told them about their bad day during the break AFTER he had already provoked them by grading their essay harshly.

The participants who knew their confederate was having an awful day BEFORE being graded were much less aggressive, when provoked by the confederate, than those who had been given no mitigating information until AFTER the provocation.

Conclusion: if you've had a bad day, tell people. If you were to say something nasty to someone and then apologize and say you're having a bad day, they're still going to be angry. If, on the other hand, you tell them you're having a bad day and then snap at them, they are much more likely to be forgiving. Turns out the emo kids actually have a good life strategy going haha


5. Sources of aggression

Zillman (1983; 1988) came up with the excitation transfer theory.
The graphs below shows the person's physiological arousal level over time. Note that arousal does not mean sexual arousal here, but emotional arousal, such as faster breathing, higher blood pressure and bpm, etc. (This is just an example story to illustrate the point, not the actual studies). In one case, the person has a near-miss accident, goes to the grocery store and then gets behind an old woman in line who's paying her bill in pennies. In the other, all the same things happen, minus the near miss accident.



As you can see, even though the person in the first graph is not consciously aware of their increased levels of physiological arousal, and were therefore unable to note that as the cause of their increased aggression, it actually was still high enough to cause it.

It has also been found that when you are prevented from reaching a goal, resulting in frustration, it increases the likelihood of aggression arising (Dollard, et al., 1939). However, not all frustration results in aggression, and not all aggression comes from frustration (Berkowitz, 1989).


Please take one thing away from this:
STOP RECOMMENDING TO PEOPLE THAT THEY PUNCH SOMETHING OR THROW SOMETHING WHEN THEY'RE MAD. IT DOESN'T WORK!!!!!!

Of course, some people are statistical anomalies and that actually will work for them. However, the existence of a single anomaly does not prove that this isn't true for the majority of people, so please do not comment on here that 'i punch walls and feel better so stfu you're wrong.' Beyond the fact that nothing is true for everyone, eliminating the evidence power of a single example, without studying it in the lab, there's no way to know if you actually get less aggressive or if you just think you do.