In 2 studies, we investigated the occurrence of anger-related behaviors and their relationship to emotional, performance-related, and situational variables. In the first study, we constructed a comprehensive taxonomy of behaviors associated with anger, and we examined the occurrence of the resulting behavior categories as a function of several independent variables. A total of 8 distinct behavior categories were identified, 3 aggressive and 5 nonaggressive. Our results also demonstrated that fight (including both verbal and physical aggression) and flight behaviors occurred most frequently. Physical aggression, however, occurred most frequently in an inhibited form, in response to the emotion of anger (as compared to the emotion of irritation), and when the anger was intense. A second study was conducted to replicate and extend the findings of Study 1. The results suggest that the taxonomy, as derived in Study 1, is comprehensive and allows for a reliable categorization. Moreover, it appeared that fight and flight behaviors occurred most frequently if the target at whom one is angry was present.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Averill, J. R. (1982). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Berkowitz, L. (1990). On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression: A cognitive–neoassociationistic analysis. American Psychologist, 45, 494–503.
Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., & Philips, C. M. (2001). Do people aggress to improve their mood? Catharsis beliefs, affect regulation opportunity, and aggressive responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 17–32.
Cannon, W. B. (Ed.). (1932). The wisdom of the body. New York: Norton.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
Coxon, A. P. M. (1999). Sorting data: Collection and data analysis. London: Sage.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Lynch, R. S., Oetting, E. R., & Yingling, D. A. (2001). Driving anger: Correlates and a test of state–trait theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1321–1331.
Diener, E. (1976). Effects of prior destructive behavior, anonymity, and group presence on deindividuation and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 497–507.
Fitness, J., & Fletcher, J. O. (1993). Love, hate, anger, and jealousy in close relationships: A prototype and cognitive appraisal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 942–958.
Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 839–852.
Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & Ster chure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 212–228.
Herrald, M. M., & Tomaka, J. (2002). Patterns of emotion-specific appraisal, coping, and cardiovascular reactivity during an ongoing emotional episode. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 434–450.
Kassinove, H., Sukhodolsky, D. G., Tsytsarev, S. V., & Solovyova, S. (1997). Self-reported anger episodes in Russia and America. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 301–324.
Krueger, R. F. (1999). The structure of common mental disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 921–926.
Linden, W., Hogan, B. E., Rutledge, T., Chawla, A., Lenz, J. W., & Leung, D. (2003). There is more to anger coping than “in” or “out.” Emotion, 3, 12–29.
Milligan, G. W., & Cooper, M. C. (1985). An examination of procedures for determining the number of clusters in a data set. Psychometrika, 50, 159–179.
Pennebaker, J. W., Zech, E., & Rimé, B. (2001). Disclosing and sharing emotion: Psychological, social and health consequences. In M. S. Stroebe, R. O. Hansson, W. Stroebe, & H. Schut (Eds.), Handbook of bereavement research: Consequences, coping, and care (pp. 517–539). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Rotter, J. B. (1971). External control and internal control. Psychology Today, 5, 37–42, 58–59.
Sonnemans, J., & Frijda, N. H. (1994). The structure of subjective emotional intensity. Cognition and Emotion, 8, 329–350.
Spielberger, C. D., Krasner, S. S., & Solomon, E. P. (1988). The experience, expression and control of anger. In M. P. Janisse (Ed.), Health psychology: Individual differences and stress (pp. 89–108). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Suter, J. M., Byrne, M. K., Byrne, S., Howells, K., & Day, A. (2002). Anger in prisoners: Women are different from men. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1087–1100.
Timmers, M., Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Gender differences in motives for regulating emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 974–985.
Acknowledgments
The research reported in this paper was supported by Grant GOA/00/02 from the Research Fund of the University of Leuven. We thank John Nezlek for his comments on a previous version of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The following reduction rules were used: (a) responses that differed only in the order of the words were put together; (b) singular and plural items were joined; (c) responses that differed only in verbs such as “to be,” “to become” or “to do” were grouped together; (d) responses that differed only syntactically (verb, noun or adjective) were grouped together; (e) responses that differed only with respect to an article, a preposition, or a possessive word were grouped together; (f) and a few specific rules were used (e.g., yourself = myself; self = auto).
The complete coding manual is available upon request from the first author.
This number differed across proportions because it depended on the number of participants assigned to each of the experimental questionnaires.
Our initial analyses contained a participant-specific random intercept, so as to take into account individual differences in the propensity to use each of the behavior categories. Inclusion of a random intercept appeared to yield a significant improvement in model fit for two of the eight behavior categories. However, because analyses with a random and with a fixed intercept yielded similar conclusions, we decided to select the most parsimonious model, namely the one without a random intercept.
The total number of participant–performance–instrumentality combinations equals 504 (i.e., 84×6) because all 84 participants had to answer six questions.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Coillie, H.V., Mechelen, I.V. A Taxonomy of Anger-Related Behaviors in Young Adults. Motiv Emot 30, 56–73 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9000-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9000-6