When angry, count four; when very angry, swear.
— Mark Twain
Twain was half right, at least. Counting to four — or forty — may be a pretty healthy way to deal with angry feelings after all. Turns out that swearing, on the other hand, may not be such a good idea.
Research now indicates that expressing anger — assertively or otherwise — may not always be the way to go. In this chapter, we’ll take a look at what’s known about anger — some of the facts, theories, and myths about this hard-to-handle emotion. In the next chapter, we’ll offer lots of suggestions for what you can do about your own anger and how you can handle anger directed at you.
We’d like to offer you a simple, three-step method for dealing with anger in your life. We’d like to, but we can’t. Anger is complicated, and handling it is complex as well.
We all love simple answers. We elect public officials who offer glib solutions to the incredibly complex issues of the day. If only the good guys and the bad guys — like in the old Western movies — could still be identified by the color of their hats. We try to oversimplify relationships between apparent “causes” and their “effects.” We want the answer to “Why do I behave that way?” to be simple: “because you were toilet trained too early,” “because your family was dysfunctional,” “because you’re a middle child.” We search for effortless equations to “explain” the mysteries of the complex human organism.
Anger is one of those things that’s an easy target for such simplistic psychology. It is variously seen as “sinful” (and therefore to be avoided at all costs), “freeing” (and therefore to be expressed at all costs), and all of the options in between. The correct answer is: none of the above .
Although there is considerable controversy among professionals who work in the anger field, there are some important points of agreement:
The six points above give us a solid foundation from which to examine a half dozen popular myths about anger that turn out to be false.
Let’s begin our exploration of anger myths by clearing up one widespread misconception. Anger is not a behavior , it’s an emotion . The confusion of angry feelings with aggressive behavior has made it difficult for many people to effectively handle this natural, universal, and useful human emotion.
Some folks say, “I never get angry.” We don’t believe it! Everyone gets angry — that is, everyone experiences the feeling of anger. However, some people have learned to control themselves so that they do not openly show anger; they choose not to express their anger. By minimizing anger in your life and developing nondestructive ways to deal with the anger you do experience, you can make aggressive actions unnecessary.
Anger remains one of the most difficult emotions for many people to express. Assertive-behavior training groups often lose members when expression of anger becomes the topic. Many people have “buried” their anger for years and are terrified of the potential consequences should they ever “let it out.” They assume that any anger brought out into the open will be hurtful to others. “I’d sooner suffer in silence than hurt anyone” is the common, unfortunate plea.
Yet much pain in human relationships results from anger that is unresolved. Both persons suffer. The angry one silently fumes. The other person continues to behave in ways that are upsetting and wonders why the relationship is deteriorating.
But the answer to dealing with long-buried anger may not be what you think. It does not lie in pillow pounding or shouting at an empty chair, but rather in finding ways to resolve — within yourself or outside — the problem that led to the anger in the first place.
For many years, psychologists and the general public believed the old Freudian myth that strong emotions build up inside us somewhere, and if we don’t vent them somehow, they’ll eventually explode. This was often expressed as “You need to get the feelings out!” The idea was that by expressing the anger, the feelings would be released and would thus prevent the health problems associated with the “building up inside.”
Contemporary research has shown the steam-kettle idea to be false. We now know it doesn’t work that way. What does happen is that we remember annoying events, and our feelings of anger can be experienced again when those memories are tapped. There are important differences between a “steam kettle” of simmering emotion and a “memory bank” of stored experiences. A steam kettle needs only to release its built-up pressure; memories can be satisfied only by resolving the problem somehow.
One of the most persistent points of disagreement among anger researchers has to do with the value of “venting” angry feelings. Many theorists favor the use of pillows, foam bats, and other “harmless” devices, or shouting at an empty chair, as tools for physical “release” of angry feelings. Others point to research that demonstrates that teaching people such means of expression strengthens the angry feelings and teaches them to vent their feelings aggressively, even at “unsafe” times (such as when the other person is present and a violent fight may ensue).
What’s more, contrary to the popular myth, angry feelings are not “released” through aggressive acts. The result of pillow pounding, shouting obscenities, and, yes, even football or boxing is that one simply learns ways to handle anger aggressively.
The best and most current evidence clearly supports the view that venting angry feelings is not psychologically healthy .
Physical expressions of hostility do nothing to solve the problem . Banging the table, stomping on the floor, crying, striking at the air, hitting a pillow — all are devices for temporary expression of strong feelings without aggression toward another person. However, they are not effective methods for dealing with your anger.
A subset of the venting myth is described in the important work of Carol Tavris, a social psychologist whose studies of anger as a social phenomenon are widely recognized as accurate and authoritative. Among the myths Dr. Tavris has identified are:
Dr. Tavris’s highly acclaimed Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion is one of the few books on the subject that we can recommend for further reading. (We’ll talk about a couple of others in a page or two.)
In early editions of this book, nearly five decades ago, we encouraged readers and our clients to try physical approaches when learning how to express strong emotions, including pounding a pillow, tug-of-war with a towel, and shouting “No!” or “I’m really angry!”
Later research, to our dismay, showed that when people learned those techniques, they often used them — in therapy or out — destructively. If no pillow was at hand, they might pound the nearest person!
So we shifted our emphasis to nondestructive verbal expression of anger, teaching folks to speak up without inhibition at injustices, real or perceived.
But research on human emotions doesn’t stand still. Now we must once again respond to new evidence about anger. This time it’s medical science that has thrown us a curve and questioned some aspects of the “spontaneous expression” approach. The latest research comes from long-term studies of the effects of hostility on the heart. We’ll take up that topic later in this chapter. (Sneak preview: sometimes it’s better not to express your angry feelings.)
All too often, people express anger, frustration, or disappointment with another person by indirect, hurtful methods. If you want to change the behavior of the other person, these approaches are rarely successful.
Newlyweds Martha and John are a “classic” case. In the first few months of their marriage, Martha discovered at least a dozen of John’s habits that she disliked. Unfortunately for both, she was unable — or unwilling — to find the courage to confront John openly with her concerns. Martha instead chose the “safe” way to express her dissatisfaction with John’s behavior; she confided in her mother. Worse yet, not content with almost-daily telephone conversations with her mother about John’s shortcomings, she also used family get-togethers as occasions to berate John in front of the rest of the family.
This “see how bad he is” style — telling a third person (or people) about your dislikes of another — has disastrous effects on a relationship. John felt hurt, embarrassed, and hostile about Martha’s attacks. He was angry that she didn’t choose the privacy of their own relationship to tell him directly. He was not motivated to change his habits. Instead, he responded to her aggressive approach with bitterness and a resolve to strike back — by intensifying the very behaviors she would have him change.
Had Martha asserted herself directly by telling John her feelings, she would have created a good foundation for a cooperative effort to change both John’s behavior and her ineffective response to it.
If John had responded assertively early in the process, he might have prevented the escalation of Martha’s attacks and avoided the bitterness and growing resentment. Instead, his determination to get revenge is sure to further drive a wedge into the relationship. John and Martha seem sure bets for marital therapy or divorce court.
Now that we’ve explored a few of the most popular myths about anger, let’s consider how those and other false ideas fit into the larger scheme of things.
On the following page is a chart that summarizes some current notions about anger, classified under three headings: (1) facts — findings that are clearly demonstrated by careful research or are self-evident; (2) theories — ideas for which there is some solid evidence but that lack clear validation and sometimes lead us astray; and (3) myths — ideas like the six we’ve just discussed that, despite their acceptance, have been proved wrong or that appear on the surface to be accurate but contain false assumptions.
Have you heard of “type A” behavior?
Back in the 1970s, California cardiologists Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman came up with the term “type A” to describe the behavior of hard-driving, ambitious, angry men. These so-called type A personalities were significantly more heart-attack prone than their “type B” brethren — those whose style is more laid-back, relaxed, and easygoing. The concept was widely accepted, and tens of thousands of men tried to convert themselves from type A to type B. Later research, however, failed to confirm the type A hypothesis, and it lost respectability for a time.
Type A made a comeback around the turn of the century, qualified by an important new finding from heart patient studies. Seems it’s not type A behavior as such that causes heart problems, but hostility that is the key factor in heart disease. Psychiatrist Redford Williams and his colleagues at Duke University identified a “hostility syndrome” — a collection of attitudes and behaviors that predicts heart disease with astonishing accuracy.
The Duke hostility research, with its large number of patients and based on such well-established psychological tests as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, showed three major factors in toxic anger: cynical thoughts , angry feelings , and aggressive behavior .
Incidentally, most heart research over the decades has studied men, but more recent studies have turned up limited data on women, showing similar patterns.
Williams’s work was presented to popular audiences in 1994 in a national best-selling book, Anger Kills , coauthored with his wife, Virginia Williams. (This is another book we recommend on anger.) Although the facts are not quite as dramatic as the title would suggest, the picture is not pretty. Chronic anger can be deadly.
Colorado State University psychology professor Charles Cole is another researcher who has found a definite health risk for people who are chronically angry. Cole studied fifty heart patients and learned that, for some of them, the large blood vessels constricted (causing reduced blood flow and thus increased blood pressure and risk of heart attack) when they merely discussed subjects they were angry about. For the chronically angry — those who are angry most of the time — says Cole, the constriction of blood flow is also chronic, and heart attacks may be much more likely.
Psychologists Chip Tafrate (Central Connecticut State University) and Howard Kassinove (Hofstra University) offer a useful “anger thermometer,” which presents a rough scale for measuring the intensity of one’s anger. You’ll find it helpful to refer back to the thermometer from time to time as you reflect on your own anger and what to do about it.
You’d probably like to know more about your own angry reactions to people and events. Here are some elements to look for as you answer that question for yourself. Some factors you can’t do much about, of course, but don’t get discouraged. Several are largely subject to your control.
Spend some time thinking — and writing in your journal — about the anger in your life. Look for patterns. Pay special attention to what triggers your anger and how you express it. Discovering the patterns and targets of your anger are key to understanding — and dealing with — your emotional response. You may discover that you have more control over your anger than you thought, especially if you can express it differently toward different people in your life.
“But wait! You haven’t told me what I can do about my anger!”
Stay tuned.