Cognitive appraisals associated with high trait anger

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00007-6Get rights and content

Abstract

This study compares the cognitive processes of high and low trait anger individuals in terms of the appraisal components and core relational theme of blame identified in the Smith and Lazarus (1993) appraisal theory. Participants were asked to rate two social interaction scenarios, both of which resulted in negative consequences. The intent of the antagonist in the video was varied, as was the cognitive load of the participants. High trait individuals blamed the antagonist more, more readily identified another person as an antagonist, more readily identified circumstances as being of relevance to their own interests, and responded more angrily to the same events, than low trait anger individuals. These appraisal biases are more marked for high trait anger individuals when there is some ambiguity as to the deliberateness of the provoking event. Cognitive load did not affect appraisals. The implications of these findings for therapeutic interventions are discussed.

Introduction

The emotion of anger has been the subject of increasing theoretical analysis and clinical application in the last 15 years, but the empirical literature investigating the nature of anger remains relatively scant. At the same time, the clinical application of theoretical models of anger has burgeoned, arguably at a faster rate than the fundamental research required to support such an application. Meta-analytic (Edmondson and Conger, 1996, Beck and Fernandez, 1998) and narrative (Howells, 1998, Novaco, 1997) reviews of the effectiveness of anger management treatments have suggested that such methods are promising in reducing problematic anger, though a number of obstacles to intervention, particularly with more severely disturbed clients, (Novaco, 1997, Howells et al., 1997, Howells, 1998) have been identified.

Clinical applications are likely to be predominantly directed at individuals with high trait anger (Deffenbacher et al., 1996). Such people have, typically, engaged in problematic behaviour (aggression, domestic violence etc) or experienced distress or illness as a consequence of their high level of trait anger. In principle, excessively low anger levels of trait anger (‘overcontrol’) might also be targetted in anger management, but few, if any, outcome studies have been reported with this group. High trait anger, therefore, in practice, is a precondition for consideration for clinical intervention. It follows that a key task is to determine the nature of, and contributory factors for, high trait anger.

Studies of the antecedents for state anger in response to a provocation (for example, Ellis, Howells & Day, 2000) may provide a guide to what factors distinguish high and low trait anger individuals, but they do not demonstrate conclusively that these factors are important. For example, high physiological arousal may be an important antecedent for the state experience of high anger, but it does not necessarily follow that high and low trait anger individuals differ in their level of physiological arousal.

Appraisal is a central concept in current emotion theory (Frijda, 1993a, Frijda, 1993b). The link between perception and emotion is thought to be an appraisal: an evaluation of the significance of the change in relation to the person (Smith & Ellsworth, 1987). Appraisals are considered to take place immediately prior to, and to determine the subsequent emotion (Sonnemans and Frijda, 1995, Reisenzein and Hofmann, 1993).

Smith and Lazarus (1993) identify appraisals at the individual component level, and at a molar level that combines individual appraisal components into a summary dimension of a core relational theme. The individual components are primary appraisals (motivational relevance and motivational congruence), which are concerned with how the encounter is relevant to the person’s well-being, and secondary appraisals (accountability, either self or other, problem focused coping potential, emotion focused coping potential and future expectancy). Smith and Lazarus (1993) propose that anger elicitation is related to a reduction in motivational congruence, an increase in motivational relevance and an increase in other-accountability. The core relational theme of anger is regarded as other-blame. Blame combines the primary appraisals of increased motivational relevance and reduced motivational congruence with the secondary appraisals of other-accountability. Lazarus (1993), (postscript, in Smith & Lazarus, 1993), later refined the model to include the role of ego involvement in the maintenance of self-esteem (Tangney et al., 1992, Baumeister et al., 1996) and high coping potential in anger elicitation.

In a series of studies, Deffenbacher et al. (1996) were able to differentiate between individuals who experienced high trait anger or anger-proneness on a number of anger characteristics. Whilst high and low anger individuals did not differ in the range of provocative situations that they encountered, high trait anger individuals tended to report ‘more anger in every type of situation’ (p.137). For the purposes of the present study, it was predicted that high trait anger subjects would show greater cognitive biases on the core relational theme of blame and the appraisal components identified by Smith and Lazarus (1993) than would low anger subjects. They are also expected to rate higher on coping potential as indicated by Lazarus (1993).

Copello and Tata (1990) reported that while an offender group tended to ascribe threatening interpretations to ambiguous sentences, a non-offender group tended to offer neutral interpretations. The work of Dodge and colleagues (Dodge, 1993, Dodge and Schwartz, 1997, Dodge and Coie, 1987, Dodge and Crick, 1990, Dodge et al., 1990), conducted with children and juveniles with conduct disorders, suggests that angry forms of aggression may relate to biased attributions of intent. There is a need to assess similar attributional biases in ‘normal’ adults who vary in their level of trait anger.

One difference between high and low trait anger groups may lie in a cognitive bias in response to ambiguous provocations. Not all individuals may be sensitive to the cues that differentiate ambiguous from deliberate provocations (Copello & Tata, 1990). A second aim of this study is to investigate whether anger is more likely to be elicited in a high trait anger group when the intent of an anger provoking incident is ambiguous.

A third area of investigation relates to the impact of cognitive load on anger arousal. There has been some debate about the role of conscious appraisal activity in the generation of emotion. Research by Smith and Lazarus (1993), Roseman, Antoniou and Jose (1996), and Sonnemans and Frijda (1995) has suggested that at least some part of the cognitive appraisal process is a conscious activity.

Gilbert and Hixon (1991) distinguished conscious and automatic processes by means of varying the cognitive busyness of experiment participants. Subjects who were subjected to cognitive busyness while watching videos were no less likely to perform the tasks, but were less likely to activate stereotypes. A study on the effects of rumination and distraction on angry mood by Rusting and Nolen-Hoeksema (1998) suggested that whilst rumination increased anger, distraction either decreased anger or had no effect. In the current study it is predicted that a cognitive load (distraction) will interfere with the conscious appraisal of provoking events leading to reduced anger arousal.

The aim of this study was to use the appraisal components and core relational theme of blame as identified in the Smith and Lazarus (1993) appraisal theory, to compare cognitive processes of high and low trait anger individuals. The study aims to examine the following four hypotheses:

  • 1.

    That high trait anger individuals will respond with more intense state anger to a provoking event.

  • 2.

    That high and low trait anger individuals differ in their appraisals of a provoking event.

  • 3.

    That the relatively higher state anger responses and the angry cognitions of high trait subjects will be most marked under conditions of ambiguity of intent on the part of the provoking agent. This amounts to the prediction of an interaction between trait anger and ambiguity of intent in determining state anger levels and angry cognitions.

  • 4.

    That for both high and low trait anger individuals, cognitive load, provided by a rehearsal activity while watching an anger eliciting video, will result in reduced anger arousal when compared with no cognitive load. Reduction in anger arousal will be more pronounced for high trait anger individuals (an interaction between trait anger and cognitive load).

Section snippets

Participants

A total of 83 individuals (59 females and 24 males) participated in the study. The mean age of the participants was 26.59 years (SD=10.82 years). All were resident in Adelaide, South Australia. 79 were undergraduate and two were postgraduate social sciences students, and three were community members. Respondents were divided into three groups according to their trait anger scores.

Procedure

As they entered the testing room participants were handed a set of papers comprising an information sheet, a consent

Data examination and preliminary analysis

Data were checked for accuracy of input and missing values. Three missing values in the deliberate provocation responses appeared to occur randomly and were replaced by cell mean scores. One trait anger item missing value was replaced by the cell mean score. Univariate outliers were identified using z scores of each item, and paying attention to those responses which were located more than three standard deviations from the mean. Data provided by three participants was deleted from the study

Discussion

The main focus of the present study was to investigate how high trait anger individuals might differ from low trait anger individuals in their cognitive processing of a provoking event. The focus has been on the cognitive appraisal processes identified by Smith and Lazarus (1993), who suggested that anger was elicited by appraisals of a core relational theme of blame, and separately, by appraisals of motivational relevance, motivational congruence and other-accountability.

Support was found for

Conclusions and implications

High trait individuals blame the antagonist more, more readily identify another person as an antagonist, more readily identify negative events as being of relevance to their own interests, and respond more angrily to the same events, than do low trait anger individuals. These appraisal biases are more marked for high trait anger individuals when there is some ambiguity as to the deliberateness of the provoking event.

These findings confirm the relevance of cognitive-behavioural and similar

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Andrew Ellis for providing the video material and rating scales.

References (35)

  • A Aron et al.

    Statistics for psychology

    (1994)
  • R.F Baumeister et al.

    Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: the dark side of high self esteem

    Psychological Review

    (1996)
  • R Beck et al.

    Cognitive-behavioural therapy in the treatment of anger: a meta-analysis

    Behaviour Research and Therapy

    (1998)
  • Clore, G. L., Schwarz, N., & Conway, M. (1994). Affective causes and consequences of social information processingIn R....
  • J.S Coakes et al.

    SPSS for windows. Analysis without anguish

    (1996)
  • A.G Copello et al.

    Violent behaviour and interpretive bias: An experimental study of the resolution of ambiguity in violent offenders

    British Journal of Clinical Psychology

    (1990)
  • J.L Deffenbacher

    Cognitive-behavioural conceptualisation and treatment of anger

    Journal of Clinical Psychology

    (1999)
  • J.L Deffenbacher et al.

    State-trait anger theory and the utility of the trait anger scale

    Journal of Counseling Psychology

    (1996)
  • K.A Dodge et al.

    Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1987)
  • K.A Dodge et al.

    Social information-processing bases of aggressive behaviour in children

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (1990)
  • K.A Dodge et al.

    Hostile attribution biases in severely aggressive adolescents

    Journal of Abnormal Psycholog

    (1990)
  • Dodge, K. A., & Schwartz, D. (1997). Social information processing mechanisms in aggressive behavior. In D. M. Stoff, &...
  • K.A Dodge

    Social-cognitive mechanisms in the development of conduct disorder and depression

    Annual Review of Psychology

    (1993)
  • C.B Edmondson et al.

    A review of treatment efficacy for individuals with anger problems: Conceptual, assessment, and methodological issues

    Clinical Psychology Review

    (1996)
  • Ellis, A., Howells, K., & Day, A. (2000). The experience of anger: attributions or appraisals as cognitive mediators?...
  • N.H Frijda

    Appraisal and beyond

    Cognition and Emotion

    (1993)
  • N.H Frijda

    The place of appraisal in emotion

    Cognition and Emotion

    (1993)
  • Cited by (65)

    • Inducing driving anger with multi-stage road events in simulator environment

      2024, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour
    • The mediating mechanisms underlying the longitudinal effect of trait anger on social aggression: Testing a temporal path model

      2020, Journal of Research in Personality
      Citation Excerpt :

      For example, Veenstra, Schneider, Bushman, and Koole (2017) found that individuals with high trait anger were more likely to perceive ambiguous situations as hostile. Second, high trait anger results in a tendency for people tend to make negative appraisals (Hazebroek, Howells, & Day, 2001). Hostile attribution tendency refers to the tendency to make negative appraisals of others.

    • Anger in PTSD

      2020, Emotion in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Etiology, Assessment, Neurobiology, and Treatment
    • Modification of Hostile Interpretation Bias in Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial

      2018, Behavior Therapy
      Citation Excerpt :

      Hostile interpretation bias is a specific negative cognitive bias that amplifies the perception of hostility and aggression in the actions of others (Hawkins & Cougle, 2013). Hostile interpretation bias was first operationalized and measured in a sample of adolescents, who were recruited for problematic aggression (Dodge & Newman, 1981), and has since been shown at elevated levels in adult individuals with high trait anger (Bond, Verheyden, Wingrove, & Curran, 2004; Epps & Kendall, 1995; Hazebroek, Howells, & Day, 2001; Wenzel & Lystad, 2005) and adults with MDD (Smith, Summers, Dillon, Macatee, & Cougle, 2016). Smith and colleagues found that individuals with clinical depression showed higher levels of hostile interpretation bias than those in a nondepressed sample.

    • Hostile interpretation bias in depression

      2016, Journal of Affective Disorders
      Citation Excerpt :

      Although this construct inherently overlaps with the cognitive component of hostility, hostile interpretation bias does not measure aggressive disposition. This type of interpretation bias was first assessed in adolescents with problematic aggression (Dodge and Newman, 1981) and has since been evidenced in adult individuals with high levels of trait anger (Bond et al., 2004; Epps and Kendall, 1995; Hazebroek et al., 2001; Wenzel and Lystad, 2005). Researchers have suggested that hostile interpretation bias may represent a potentially instrumental maintenance factor in depression, particularly with regard to associated social impairment (Mogg et al., 2006; Moreno et al., 1993; Riley et al., 1989); however, it has yet to be empirically evaluated in a clinically depressed sample, to the authors' knowledge.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text