Anger, Aggression and communication - Research Paper Example

?Running Head: ANGER, AGGRESSION AND COMMUNICATION Anger, Aggression and Communication Anger, Aggression and Communication Introduction In my life I have been through many situations when I lost control and involve in verbal and physical aggression. Aggression, anger and frustration are of particular concern among the mental health community, schools, and society at large. Many studies have determined that frustration, anger, and aggression are related, such that an increase in one is associated with an increase in the other. In addition, there is evidence indicating that people may become more aggressive in a frustrating situation, specifically, when anger is primed (Betsch et al., 1999). The role of communication with these previously mentioned variables is not as clear. However, it can be noted that humans are capable of determining a wide array of emotions, including anger, in both verbal and nonverbal capacities. From personal experience I have noted that when given an apology, people are more likely to rate the offender of the negative action as more positive and report less aggressive affect as compared to when no apology is given. Frustration, Anger, and Aggression Frustration has been linked to anger when an obstruction of motivationally relevant goals has been observed. In order for angry affect to occur the situation must be understood and personally important. In other words, there must be a goal that is blocked and others may be blamed (Berkowitz, & Harmon, 2004). In many circumstances, the blockage of this personally relevant goal can be viewed as either legitimate or illegitimate (unfair). Weiss, Suckow, and Cropanzano (1999) investigated the effect of unfairness of a particular outcome on reported levels of anger. As the amount of unfairness increased so did the level of anger. It is important to maintain the distinct difference between anger and aggression. Anger is an affect, an emotion, while aggression is a destructive or hostile behavior. Frustration has been studied with aggression as well as with anger. Dollard et al. (cited in Berkowitz, & Harmon, 2004) were some of the first researchers to investigate the effects of frustration on aggression. They found that the obstruction of an expected reward created increased levels of aggression. More recently Leonard Berkowitz and his colleagues (Berkowitz, & Harmon, 2004) have modified this theory. In general it is accepted that the blockage of some personally relevant goal leads to frustration, which in turn may lead to anger and/or aggression. The type of frustration required to elicit an anger response may not need to be a goal of long standing personal relevance. Roseman (1991) investigated appraisals involving emotions and concluded that transient rewards or fleeting punishments can produce anger arousing affect. Obstructions to a goal determined to be purposeful created more anger than situations in which they were deemed accidental, even in temporary situations of reward and punishment. There is evidence indicating that people may become more aggressive in a frustrating situation, specifically, when anger is primed in comparison to fear. Betsch (1999) studied the concept of hostile aggression with university students. Hostile aggression was measured by participants' reactions when confronted with a scenario involving a frustrating event. Either anger or fear related cognitions were activated. Results indicate that in the anger priming condition, hostile goals (i.e. aggression) were more likely to be reported. This suggests that frustration, anger, and aggression are associated. It is assumed that in a frustrating situation, levels of anger will increase. As reported previously, as anger increases so does the amount of aggression displayed. There are other reasons for the onset of anger and in turn aggression. One interesting aspect is the role of communication. Communication Communication is an essential part of human existence, and research suggests that there are innate mechanisms in the development of human language (Green & Vervaeke, 1997). This suggests that the importance of communication in human life is so monumental that aspects of language acquisition have evolved to facilitate universal grammar. Communication within and among human culture is an integral part to the survival of the human species, and is a certified necessity in past and modern society. The information transmitted through communication is complex and there are several ways in which humans communicate. Humans are capable of interpreting not only mundane information, but information that expresses a wide array of affect, feeling, and behavior. Two such capacities are verbal and nonverbal communication. Nonverbal Communication When interpreting aggressive intent, facial expression is an imperative part of the process. Humans are able to decipher many emotions through the examination of nonverbal illustration. To convey the importance of facial expression interpretation, Horstmann (2003) studied facial expression with the display of emotion. Emotion theorists presume that individuals use a variety of facial expressions to display information about their emotional state. In contrast, behavioral ecologists assert that the uses of facial displays are demonstrated as the intention of their behavior or to request an action. Participants were presented with facial expressions and asked to interpret what was implied by the demonstrator. Most of the participants chose affect as the message of facial expressions for disgust, fear, sadness, happiness, and surprise. However, only the anger facial display tended to be associated with behavioral intention or action requests. This demonstrates that emotions and behavior can be interpreted by facial expression. The compelling aspect to this study is that anger was the only expression in which a behavior was linked to the interpretation. Higher levels of interpretation are needed for the anger condition, demonstrating the unique possibility of misinterpreting anger and behavioral intentions. It is far less difficult and less threatening to misinterpret other facial expressions. There is also less consequence for incorrectly interpreting other expression as compared to anger. The misinterpretation of anger could lead to the escalation of a hostile act. Facial expressions are innate, and can communicate the emotion that is contracted to be presented. In addition, an angered look may escalate a conflictive situation, partially due to the innate aspect of facial expression. Anger and hostility in facial expression has been shown to be intended to display a behavioral intention, and is interpreted innately to assess dangerous situations (Horstmann, 2003). Humans are able to display and interpret hostile situations. In addition, humans are capable of expressing many emotions through nonverbal communication. There are many social situations which the average human will encounter on a recurring basis, some of which are more effortless to interpret than others. Fernandez­Dols, Carrera, and Russell (2002) examined interpretations of social and nonsocial situations as they pertain to facial expressions. It was stated that "observers are remarkably consistent in attributing particular emotions to particular facial expressions" (p. 119). The authors hypothesized that using slightly different procedures in a facial recognition study would change the way in which participants attribute expression. This procedure was known for an emphasis on situational information. Participants were asked to judge whether an example of an emotional facial expression was more likely to be associated with a social situation in which communication with another person was involved or with an equivalent emotional expression but in a nonsocial situation. Every facial expression was more highly associated with the social situation as compared to the nonsocial situation. This effect was demonstrated on all emotions presented including happiness, fear, disgust, anger, and sadness across cultures. This demonstrates that humans use emotions and nonverbal actions to display affect on a wide spectrum of expressions. In addition, these findings indicate that social contact with another person will be interpreted as intentional and social, even for the anger expression. As interpreted by an observer, in no circumstance would someone display an emotion in a nonsocial manner. Facial expressions display the information that an individual wants to convey. If communication is misinterpreted or thwarted, the conflictive situation may escalate into a hostile circumstance for the individuals involved. One aspect that has not been examined is the use of apologies and other mitigating information in facial expression and other nonverbal behaviors. The compulsory action to communicate through nonverbal facial expression has been established. This is an innate process in which humans are capable of displaying an emotion or affective state and, in turn, the observer is capable of deciphering this information and interpreting it to the best of their abilities. Anger and hostility are unique in the manner in which their facial display is decoded. As with other emotions they are used in social situations involving others, however, the display of anger or hostility is most often seen as a behavioral intention rather than an affective emotional state. The misinterpretation of an anger display may generate consequences that are harmful to the observer. In addition to nonverbal behavior, individuals may obtain information through verbal communication. Verbal Communication In addition to being good at interpreting facial cues, humans are inherently good at using vocal cues to understand other people and what expressions are being made. Klaus Scherer (1991) examined the congruity between vocal expression patterns in naturally occurring emotions and participants' interpretations of those expressions. Female and male professional radio actors depicted anger, sadness, joy, fear, and disgust based on practical scenarios of emotion-eliciting events. Overall, participants recognized all emotions very consistently. These findings demonstrate the remarkable accuracy with which humans are capable of interpreting vocal expression. When conveying emotions, vocal expression seems to be another innate aspect to language interpretation. In addition to the recognition of emotions through vocal cues, Costanzo (1992) extended the literature further and found females are able to decode verbal and nonverbal cues more accurately than males. Consistent with this finding, it was also mentioned that females have been found to be better communicators in general. This suggests that gender differences may be present when communicating. In addition, Hall, Carter, and Horgan (2000) concluded there are gender differences in communication. Specifically, women were found to be more accurate than men on interpreting expressions of nonverbal communication. Tannen (1990) posits that there are gender differences in communication style. She concluded that men tend to use communication to gain independence and avoid failure, while women tend to have better interpersonal communication and view conversation as a way to achieve closeness and agreement. More recent studies have tested these claims and determined that interpersonal communication differences between men and women are smaller than originally found (Oxley, Dzindolet, and Miller, 2002). Women may observe, interpret, and convey information differently than men. This ability to execute communication in general more successfully than men can be applied to anger communication. Women should become less angered than men in a communication situation due to the ability to interpret and express emotions both verbally and nonverbally. One aspect that has been examined is the use of information in communication, such as an apology, to mitigate levels of anger. Communication and Mitigating Circumstances There are mitigating circumstances involving anger and aggression. One study conducted by Ohbuchi (1989) found that when given an apology, participants were more likely to rate the perpetrator of the negative action as more positive and report less aggressive affect as compared to when no apology was given. In a frustrating situation, anger may be felt by an individual. The observer may be able to lessen the potentially hostile emotions by giving an anger reducing cue. One very reliable anger reducing cue is an apology. Verbal communication is needed in this situation to mitigate anger. Ferguson and Rule (1983) found that when given an explanation for a particular anger arousing incident, participants reported less anger towards the perpetrator as compared to when no explanation was given. In addition, individuals also felt that the perpetrator had less malevolent intent during the incident when given an explanation. This indicates that when communication and information of the circumstance is given, people feel less angered. This mitigating circumstance is particularly helpful in a communication situation. Verbal communication is once again needed to lessen the hostility of the person on the receiving end of the anger arousing incident. When there is no verbal outlet for communication, a mitigating situation may not feasible and anger will remain, and in turn, aggression will increase. One other way to increase aggression is the use of provocation. Provocation has the opposite effect of mitigating information and may increase levels of hostility. Provocation, reciprocity, and lack of aggressive intent were found as mitigating circumstances in familial aggression. Martin and Ross (1996) found a child believed they deserved less punishment when provoked by a sibling as compared to when not provoked, even if the aggression was more severe. This indicates that provocation can justify the hostile act. These results indicate that mitigating circumstances can lessen or conversely, intensify aggression. Specifically, if one feels that they were provoked by another person; more aggression may be displayed even if the provocation was unintentional. Verbal and nonverbal communication of intent can mitigate the situation by clarifying provocation if necessary. When no communication is available, intention and provocation are determined by the interpretation of the receiver. This interpretation may be inaccurate and aggression or a hostile act may be a decedent to this situation. Information Processing Information processing is the method by which individuals attend to, encode, and interpret social information. One classic theory in social information processing is the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977 cited in Smith, 1995). This theory posits that in a social situation, individuals are more likely to attribute the actions of a person to their dispositional qualities rather than the situational factors. According to Smith (1995), the concept of attribution has two meanings. The first refers to the inferences made of the target individual's behavior, specifically focusing on that person's disposition, or internal characteristics. The second meaning is the use of observable situations in the environment to infer that certain circumstances in the world are stable. In many cases situations are extremely variable; therefore assessing an individual's disposition can decrease the effect of situational variability. In both meanings the interpretation of the situation and the disposition are inferred by a perceiver, and the entirety of the observable evidence may not be taken into consideration. Kremer and Stephens (1983) manipulated time of mitigation (immediate or late) and number of provocations (one or several). It was found that mitigation given directly after a provocation decreased retaliation when not followed by subsequent provocations. This effect was not found for late mitigation. This demonstrates the importance of the timing of mitigation, that in order to be successful, information is needed immediately after an incident. Conclusion Verbal and nonverbal communications are important to human behavior and emotion. Individuals are capable of decoding and displaying facial expressions. Facial expressions display the information that the person wants to convey. If communication is misinterpreted or thwarted, the conflictive situation may escalate in to a hostile circumstance. Individuals are remarkably accurate at distinguishing between all emotions expressed through verbal communication. There are situations in which mitigating circumstances may attenuate or intensify the amount of anger felt and aggression displayed. In an anger inducing situation, the perpetrator is able to lessen the hostile emotions felt by the receiver by giving an anger reducing cue. Examples of such a cue are an apology or an explanation. Another example is provocation, specifically if one feels that they were provoked by another person; more aggression may be displayed especially if the provocation was intentional. Verbal communication is needed in these situations to mitigate anger and possibly an aggressive or hostile act. Nonverbal mitigating information has not been established in the literature. Previously it was also mentioned that frustration and anger are associated. It has been determined that in a frustrating situation, levels of anger increase. In addition, as anger increases the amount of aggression displayed may increase. Men are more aggressive than women, and are less successful when interpreting nonverbal and verbal communication. When communication is misinterpreted or not given, anger and aggression may be a reaction. On the other hand, people are more likely to assess situational components, instead of dispositional characteristics, when given information. This in turn may decrease levels of anger and aggression. References Berkowitz, L., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2004). Toward an understanding of the determinants of anger. Emotion, 4, 1528-3542. Betsch, T., Schmid, J., Glaubrecht, M., Kurzenhauser, S., Dondelinger, A. (1999). An empirical test of the concept of hostile aggression. Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie (30), 194-206. Costanzo, M. (1992). Training students to decode verbal and nonverbal Cues: Effects on confidence and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology. 84 (3), 308­313. Ferguson, T. J. & Rule, B. G. (1983). An attributional perspective on anger and aggression. In R. G. Geen & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews (pp. 41-74). New York: Academic Press. Fernandez-Dols, M., Carrera, P., & Russell, A. (2002). Are facial displays social? Situational influences in the attribution of emotion to facial expression. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 5(2), 119-124. Green, C, & Vervaeke, J. (1997). But what have you done for us lately? Some recent perspectives on linguistic Nativism. Johnson, D. and C. Ernling, C. (Eds). Oxford University Press, London. 149-163. Hall, J., Carter, J., & Horgan, T. (2000). Gender differences in nonverbal communication of emotion. Agneta H. Fischer (Ed.). Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives. (331). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Horstmann, G. (2003). What do facial expressions convey: Feeling states, behavioral intentions or action requests? Emotion, 3, 150-166. Kremer, J., & Stephens, L. (1983). Attributions and arousal as mediators of mitigation's effect on retaliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,335-343. Martin, J & Ross, H. (1996). Do mitigating circumstances influence family reaction to physical aggression? Child Development, 67, 1455-1466. Ohbuchi, K.-i., Kameda, M., & Agarie, N. (1989). Apology as aggression control: Its role in mediating appraisal of and response to harm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 219-227. Oxley, N., Dzindolet, M., & Miller, J. (2002). Sex differences in communication with close friends: Testing Tannen's claims. Psychological Reports, 91(2),537-544. Roseman, J. (1991). Appraisal determinants of discrete emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 5, 161-200. Scherer, K. R., Banse, R., Wallbott, H. G., & Goldbeck, T. (1991). Vocal cues in emotion encoding and decoding. Motivation and Emotion, 15(2), 123-148. Smith, E. (1995). Social cognition contributions to attribution theory and research. In P.Devine, D. Hamilton, & T. Ostrom (Eds.) Social Cognition: Impact on Social Psychology. London: Academic Press. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Men and women in conversation. New York: Ballantine Books. Weiss, H. Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of justice conditions on discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 786-794. Read More