Self-Reported Anger Episodes in Russia and America

Self-Reported Anger Episodes in Russia and America Howard Kassinove Denis G. Sukhodolsky Sergei V. Tsytsarev Department of Psychology, Hofstra University Monroe Hall, Hempstead, NY 11550-1090

Svetlana Solovyova Pavlov Medical School, St. Petersburg, Russia In this study 747 American and Russian participants provided reports about recent anger experiences. In hoth countries anger was generally triggered at home, during the afternoon or evening, and across all days of the week by the unexpected actions of a liked or loved person. It was perceived as different from annoyance in terms of a lowerfrequency of occurrence, greater intensity, and longer duration. Anger was typically describedasa verbalevent involving arguing, sarcasm, or complaining. It was not associated with aggressive desires or behavior. Although similarities across Russian and American men and women were noted, Russians were more likely to experience anger in a public place and to have it triggered by an uncontrollable event. Americans, and men, more often reported associated physical actions such as hitting a person or destroying an object. A number of other sex differences were found. The qualitative similarities across the samples, punctuated by differences in manifestations, are congruent with a universalist view of anger. Anger is a negative feeling state which is generally associated with aggression, and with an increased likelihood of offending others, driving recklessly, performing poorly on the job, harming our children, etc. (Deffenbacher, 1992,1994,1995; Dix, 1991). In addition, some evidence links anger to hypertension, coronary artery disease, cancer, and other medical conditions (see Siegman & Smith, 1994; Thomas, 1993; Spielberger, 1988). Given these correlates, it is important to understand Authors' Notes: We thank David Baryk, Jerry Deffenbacher, Christopher Eckhardt, Karen Quick, Genadi Sukhodolsky and Andrew Vaughn for their help with collection of the data and for their advice on the development of some questions. We thank Igor Davidson for his help with the data entry, and we are appreciative of the comments made by Anna Breytman, Merry Mcvey, and anonymous reviewers about an earlier version of the manuscript. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1997, Vol, 12, No, 2. 301-324, ©1997 Select Press, Corte Madera. CA, 415/924-1612,

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY

the triggers of anger, what the experience feels like, how it is expressed, and the outcomes with which it is associaled. The present self-report study is based on a social constructivist approach (Averill, 1982, 1983) in which anger is considered to be a social role which is developed based upon the meanings people impose on stimulus events, Constructivists believe that emotions are global responses of the whole person (Russell, 1995) which cannot be defined in terms of necessary or sufficient subclasses (e,g,, physiological reactions, expressive behaviors, cognitions, subjective experiences, etc.). Hypothetically, anger can exist with or without motor behavior, with or without yelling and screaming, and with or without images and fantasies. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the modal ways in which it is manifested in the natural environment. This suggests the importance of studying freely occurring anger episodes. To study anger within this framework, Averill (1983) had 160 American respondents (80 university students and 80 community residents) recall their most intense episodes of anger during the prior week and report on that episode in a 90-item questionnaire. An additional group of 80 students described experiences as the target of another person's anger and a final group of 48 students kept daily logs of their experiences with anger and annoyance. The results yielded six findings. First, anger was found to be an interpersonal feeling which typically involved a close relationship, such as one with a friend or family member. Second, women and men had a similar pattern of frequency and intensity of anger, although women tended to cry more than men. Third, anger was evaluated quantitatively as more intense than annoyance. This was an important comparison to investigate, since it can be argued that annoyance is a proper and tempered response while anger is more passionate and more likely to lead to interpersonal difficulty. Fourth, anger was reported to be related to impulses toward aggression and toward the inhibition or elimination of aggression. Fifth, anger seemed to be caused not by frustration alone, but by the perception of a misdeed coupled with an attribution of blame. Finally, the consequences of anger were often perceived to be positive which suggested that anger episodes were socially reinforced. This seemed to explain its high frequency. While Averill's findings added much to an understanding of the anger experience, his small sample size and the fact that all respondents were from one area of the United States suggest the desirability for further work. In addition, there is varying evidence regarding sex differences in the experience and expression of anger. It is generally believed that women have greater difficulty expressing their anger and that their anger

Kassinovc cl al.

SELF-REPORTED ANGER IN AMERICA AND RU.SSIA

suppres.sion results in negative outcomes such as depression, anxiety, crying, guiit, resentment, etc. However, Kopper and Epperson (1996) reviewed the data and concluded that the results of currently published studies on sex differences are inconclusive. Some studies report "no signitlcant gender differences in anger expression... but others have suggested that women report more expressed anger and hostility than men" (p. 159). Another issue in anger research relates to the universality of the phenomenon. Greater opportunities for travel to all parts ofthe world now exist and there is increased exchange of all kinds of data. Thus, for commercial, political, and social purposes it is important to understand similarities and/or differences in anger. Berry, Poortinga, Segall and Dasen (1992) have identified three models which can be advanced to help understand cross-cultural elements of anger. The relativist model".. .seeks to avoid all traces of ethnocentrism by trying to understand people 'in their own terms' without imposing any value judgments or a priori judgments of any kind" (p. 256). It assumes that variations across societies represent cultural differences and little interest is paid to other possible causative factors. Differences among societies are seen as totally qualitative and researchers would study anger only within their own society. In contrast, the absolutist model posits that phenomena are basically the same across different societies. Anger is assumed to be the same everywhere in the world. Cross societal comparisons are thought to create no special problems and only linguistic equivalence is considered in investigations. Any differences which are found are considered to be quantitative variations in the exact same phenomenon. Finally, the universalist model differentiates processes (common features likely to exist everywhere) from manifestations (influenced by culture). Quantitative differences in a phenomenon like anger might exist, within the same basic conception of the phenomenon under study. In the present study, we explored the triggers, experience, expression, and outcome of anger in men and women in two rather different societies, Russia and the United States. Given the rapid changes in modern day Russia, a qualitative similarity of findings in these two countries (with some quantitative differences) would be congruent with a universalist model. Qualitative dissimilarity, in contrast, would suggest cultural specificity and a relativist model. METHOD Participants Data were collected from a total of 747 participants. The 401 Americans (151 men and 251 women) were from four locations i n the New York

.304

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOR A N D PERSONALITY

area; a private suburban university, an inner city four-year college, a community college, and a New York City high school. Based on .sellreported demographic data, this sample had a mean age of 22.6 (SD = 7,1) and was racially diverse. Fifty percent were Black, 33% were White, 8% were Hispanic, 3% were Asian, and 6% identified themselves as "other." Eighty-four percent were single, 12% were married, and 3% were widowed/divorced. Of the total sample, 39% identified themselves as Catholic, 18% as Protestant, 9% as Jewish, 4% as agnostic/atheist, and 30% as "other." The 346 Russian participants (134 men and 212 women) were from the Pavlov Medical School in St. Petersburg and from two high schools in the same city. Their mean age was 18,1 (SD - 2.8), and 98% identified themselves as "Russian." Ninety-three percent were single, 7% were married and 1 % were divorced. Seventy-nine percent indicated they were Russian Orthodox, 17% were atheists/agnostics, 1% were Catholic and 2% checked "other." Procedure A four-page questionnaire was used which included demographic questions and the anger experiences survey. The ideas for many items emerged directly from the work of prior investigators such Anastasi, Cohen, and Spatz (1948), Averill (1982), Gates (1926), etc., and from discussions with scholars working in the area of anger. Many of the specific topics covered are presented in the results section. The American and Russian questionnaires were all completed in classes to assure that there was no collaboration in making the reports. The data were collected in 1995. Translations The questionnaire was developed in English and translated into Russian by the second author, a native born Russian speaker. It was then back translated by the third author, who is also a native born Russian. The three senior authors then discussed those translation issues which emerged, and reached a joint decision as to which words to use. RESULTS Episodes of anger were conceptualized as having four parts: triggers, the experience itself, modes of expression, and outcomes. We examined the patterns which emerged for men and women within each society, and the patterns between the two societies. Triggers. Participants were asked to think of and to describe a recent time when they became angry. They first wrote about the situation in an open-ended fashion and then responded to specific questions about the

Kas,sinove et al,

SELF-REPORTED ANGER IN AMERICA AND RUSSIA

7,05

event, in which they had to select their choices from predefined categories. An informal content analysis suggested an identifiable pattern of anger responses, as well as country and sex differences. Participants typically reported that the triggers were present in their immediate environment and were most often interpersonal in nature, Russians reported a number of anger episodes which took place in overcrowded public transportation situations and in lines waiting for consumer goods and food products, Americans reported more anger episodes related to driving a car (e,g,, sitting in a traffic jam* or being cut off by another driver). More Russians described anger episodes as related to interactions with their parents. In contrast, most American anger triggers were related to boyfriend-girlfriend relationships (e.g., "On the phone with my girlfriend. As usual, she blamed me for our problems!"). The informal analysis also showed age specific characteristics. High school students tended to become angry in response to peer interactions (i.e., friends and siblings) more frequently than in interactions with adults (i.e., parents or teachers). College students frequently described anger incidents related to their classes, examinations, and professors. Overall, it seemed like anger episodes had a higher probability of being reported in response to the open-ended question in relation to the respondent's dominant activity (e.g., play, study, or work), and in response to a person with whom the respondent has a significant relationship, and with whom significant time is spent. Eight specific questions were asked about possible triggers. These included the factors of location, time, targets/causes, target attributions, and category ofthe reported causes (see Table 1). Again, in spite of some differences, the American and Russian data are quite similar. For this reason, percentages are also given for the total sample. Almost half of the reported anger episodes in both countries occurred at home. Nevertheless, the country difference was significant, x^(4, N = 685) = 95.30; p < .001. In America the distribution among other settings [work/school/public place/other] was relatively even. In contrast, 35% of the anger events in Russia occurred in a public place and only 1% occurred at work. For the overall sample, there was a significant difference between the sexes, x\4. N = 684) = 41.25, p < .001. More women reported anger at home, while more men reported anger in a public place. This sex difference held true within both countries , X^Amcrica^"*' ^ ~ 378) = 22.55, p < .001; x\^,,./4, N = 306) = 25.03, p < .001™"" In both countries, the episodes occurred across all days of the week. However, approximately one-quarter ofthe Russians could not remember the day of the week, an "inability" that was about three times more frequent than reported by the American participants, x^(7, N = 720) =

306


TABLE 1

Reported American cind Russian Causesi ot a Recent Anget • Episode American Sample

Russian Sample

Me.rfWomen Total

Total Sample

Men Women 'Total Ki/n Women Total

"Where were you when you experienced this anger,?" \& 'o \?,54% ^ 4 8 % Yi 1 % ^56% A Home \ ^35% 1 1 2 4 13 11 Work 6 14 14 14 12 13 15 14 School 32 II 51 25 35 16 8 Public place 2 4 3 14 12 17 Other 25

8 13 16 9

'41% 6 13 22 11

9 11

10 12

10 12

14 15 9 10 8

13 11 9 13 8

13 13 9 12 8

"On what day of the week did it occur?" 12 12 6 Monday 12 11 14 11 13 Tuesday 14 12 15 13 Wednesday 12 14 13 Thursday 17 It 6 12 10 Friday 11 14 10 17 Saturday 7 8 19 9 Sunday Can't 36 12 12 remember 13

8 10 12 9 8 10 7

10 12 11 7 10 7

36

36

23

23

23

"When did the incident begin?" Moming 19 19 19 Afternoon 46 40 42 Evening 34 33 33 Just prior to bed 2 8 6

18 43 31 8

19 37 39 6

19 39 36 7

19 44 33 5

19 39 36 7

19 41 35 6

"I was angry at:" Someone I know well and like 34 Someone I know well and dislike 12 Someone I love 22 An acquaintance 9 A stranger 19

7

24

27

35

39

37

34

31

32

9 43 10 7

10 35 10 12

8 12 5 27

9 26 9 13

9 21 7 18

10 18 7 23

9 35 9 10

9 29

(continued)

8 15

Kassinove et al.

TABLE I


307

(continued) Total Sample

Russian Sample

American Sample

Men1 Women Total Men Women irotal "The cause of mjf anger was:" An institution [government, 1^ 1 7% business, etc.] 5% 8% Something you 15 15 15 did Something some79 81 one else did 76 Unrelated to you 4 6 or anyone else 9 An expected 21 event 21 21 An unexpected 78 78 79 event A controllable 59 64 55 event An uncontrollable 41 45 36 event An intentional 44 45 45 event An unintentional 55 56 55 event

Men Women Total

6%

7%

13

1

15

80

77

81

80

2

5

9

3

6

21

31

27

21

26

24

79

69

73

79

74

76

44

42

43

55

49

51

56

58

57

46

51

49

48

54

52

46

49

48

51

46

48

53

50

52

12%

4%

1%

8%

12

17

15

78

81

10

55.47, p < .001. No sex differences emerged regarding the day of the reported anger episode for the overall sample or within each country samples. Regarding time of the day, the afternoon and evening hours represented peak anger periods, accounting for three-quarters of the reported events in both countries combined, x^(3, N = 715) = 210.34, p < .001. There were no significant country or overall sex differences, and no differences between the sexes within each country. To further assess triggers for the event, participants were asked to respond to the item, "That recent time when I became angry, I was angry at:" Participants were most often angered by someone well-known and liked, or loved, and these were the two top categories in both samples.

308


However, more Americans were angered by someone loved while more Russians were angered by someone liked, and a higher percentage of women in both countries" were "angered by someone loved. Although the country differe^ii^'^ x\6, N = 689) = 25.13, p < .001, and the sex difference, x^(6^|£=^8) = 40.35, p < .001, were both significant, caution is warrantedjjeCause of expressive differences between the languages. Of note, 4nJDdth countries anger was triggered infrequently at institutions, people disliked, acquaintances, or strangers. Anger, overall, was reported to be triggered approximately 80% of the time by actions of another person. The country difference was not significant. However, a significant sex difference reflected the fact that men were more likely than wcnuen to report being angered by something unrelated to them, x^(2, lf=l\2)= 12.55, p < .001. This sex difference was signifjcant^ly within Russian sample, y}(2, N = 327) = 10.74, p < . 0 1 . ^-—^ The next set of questions examined the attributions of expectation, controllability and intentionality. Overall, approximately three-quarters of the events were seen as unexpectpd^ opposed to expected. This difference was significant in America, x^(l, N = 329) = 106.28, p < .001, and in Russia, x^(l, N = 270) = 56^^92^p^< .001. The overall effects of country and sex, and sex difference within the countries were not significant. Overall, ajjdut half of the anger events were reported as being caused by a controTIaijle event and half by an uncontrollable event. However, more Americaiis saw their anger as caused by a controllable event while more Ri^sian participants saw their anger as caused by something uncontrollabife, X^(l. N = 555) - 14.03, p < .001. There were no significant sex differences. Overall, and within both countries, participants of both sexes were equally likely to attribute their anger to intentional versus unintentional actions. The anger experience. As shown in Table 2, 93% of Americans as contrasted with 76% of Russians believed that they could differentiate between those times when they felt annoyed and when they felt angry. While there were no significant sex differenc^Swithm each country, the country difference did emerge as significailt, %^(2, N = 747) = 41.71,

p N = 707) = 6.0, p < .01, realized their own strengths. The sex difference was significant only within America, x \ 1, N = 393) = 6.2, p < .01. With regard to recognizing their own faults after the anger episode, the country and within and overall sex differences were nonsignificant. A large percent (48% of Americans and 54% of Russians) of the sample did not report a positive or a negative personal change following their anger episodes. Fifty percent ofthe Americans and 32% of the Russians recognized either weaker or stronger personal relationships after the anger episode. A significant country difference, x^(l, N = 707) - 5.7, p < .02, indicated that more Americans noted a weaker relationship. The overall sex difference, and the sex differences within each country, were not significant. Interestingly, more Americans also reported a stronger personal relationship after anger, X^(' - N = 707) = 12.8, p < .001. The overall sex difference, and the sex differences within each country, were again nonsignificant. Forty-five percent ofthe Americans and 19% ofthe Russians recognized a change in their respect for the person or institution that was the cause of the anger. In both samples, many more participants lost rather than gained respect for the person/institution. A significant country

Kassinove el al.

.SELF-REPORTED ANGER IN AMERICA AND RUSSIA

317

effect, X"(l, N = 707) = 32.1, p < .001, indicated that Americans were more likely to report losing respect. In addition, women overall, X"(l, N - 707) = 8.7, p < .01, reported signitlcantly more loss of respect. However, this difference was true only in the American sample, ^^(1, N = 393) = 11.1, p < .001. Americans also reported significantly more gains in respect for the person/institution than did Russians, x^(\, N = 707) = 14.3, p < .OOL Sex differences overall, and within each country, with regard to gains in respect were not significant. DISCUSSION Anger is a personal experience which can be reported to others and examined along a variety of dimensions. In the present study, American and Russian participants were asked to recall a recent episode of anger and report the triggers, characteristics of the experience, desired and actual patterns of expression, and outcomes. These self-reports were used to study similarities within and across countries. Overall, the data suggest that some country and sex differences do exist. However, the similarities are so strong that is seems unwise to adopt a relativist position wherein the differences would be considered to be qualitative. At the same time, the differences would also suggest that it would be unwise to adopt an absolutist positive which posits that anger is exactly the same in American and in Russia. The position described by Berry et al. (1992) as universalist (wherein anger has common features which exist across societies but is likely to be manifested differently because of cultural influences) seems to best describe the data. Thus, although anger has similar antecedents, experiential and expressive patterns, and outcomes, there are also cultural and sex differences which suggest that the phenomenon is best studied by understanding forces within societies which shape the experience. In both countries, anger was most often reported to have occurred at home by the actions of a well-known liked or loved person, such as a friend, an acquaintance or a parent. The actions of the person were generally considered to be unexpected. It was likely to have been experienced during the afternoon or evening, across all days of the week. These actions were seen as either intentional or unintentional in origin and for the overall sample were either controllable or uncontrollable in nature. In both countries, for men and women, anger was not typically triggered by strangers, by disliked people, or by institutions. Thus, the data support the position of Averill (1983) and others (Tanaka-Matsumi, 1995) that anger is a personal emotion which most often emerges in a close interpersonal encounter.

318


In addition to thinking that anger would be triggered by unexpected actions of others, we hypothesized it would most often be seen as caused by actions which were both intentional and controllable. In their analysis of aggression and violence, Tedeschi and Felson (1994) note that people seek to explain the unwanted and unexpected actions of others. When another person is thought to have engaged in an intentional aversive action, which caused harm and could have been controlled, blame is placed on that person and there is a move towards retribution in the form of aggressive behavior. It seemed likely that this model would also apply to anger. However, our participants were equally likely to see the event which caused the anger as controllable or uncontrollable, and intentional or unintentional. Thus, it may well be that these kinds of attributions are more likely to apply to aggression (the behavior) than to anger (the phenomenological experience). Altematively, we note that we simply asked respondents to check off choices in each category (expected-unexpected; controllable-uncontrollable; intentional-unintentional) and that while the unexpected nature of the action may have been salient, they may not have thoughtfully considered their perceptions regarding intentionality and controllability. Further research, perhaps based on. interviews, will shed more light on this. In early studies by Gates (1926) and Meltzer (1933), reported anger experiences did not occur uniformly throughout the week. In their New York samples, the most frequent responses occurred on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. This was attributed to the larger number of stimulus situations available to college students on those days which might trigger anger. Modern day college students, however, are not as "protected" as they were then and have a wider range of possible triggers available which might set them off. Their early data also did not highlight the evening hours as being of particular importance for the experience of anger. Again, it is likely that in modern times (in both countries) young adults stay out much later and more triggers are available. Interestingly, about one-quarter of the entire sample (and almost one-third of the Russian subjects) could not recall the day when the anger episode occurred. This seems to suggest that subjects were honest and were not fabricating responses to report on the questionnaire. Reflecting life-style differences, the informal content analysis showed that the triggers varied according to the daily pattern of opportunities or frustrations. Younger high school students were more likely to be angry at a friend, while older university students were more likely to see a professor as an anger source. In America, where most people drive a car, driving anger emerged as a theme. The importance of this theme has been noted by Deffenbacher, Oetting, and Lynch (1994). In Russia, where few

Kassinove et al.


people own cars but where there is often a long line to purchase goods, anger themes were related to waiting on lines. In addition, the lower availability of private housing for young people in Russia, or even a private room, naturally made anger at parents a more common trigger due to proximity in the parent-child dyad. Significant country differences did emerge with regard to location, controllability, and source of anger. Although most events occurred at home, in Russia only I % occurred at work while 35% occurred in a public place. In addition, Russians were more likely than Americans to see their anger source as engaging in an uncontrollable action. Several explanations may be offered for this finding such as the scarcity of work opportunities for Russians, by their history of compliance in a totalitarian regime, and by their higb level of public alcohol usage which lowers the anger threshold and leads to uncontrollable actions. Americans were more likely to report being angered by someone loved while Russians more often reported being angered by someone liked. However, this finding is probably an artifact of language. In English it is common for a man to say to another man, "I like you," as the phrase implies broad nonsexual feelings of attraction, respect, congruence, and comfort. In Russian, the parallel phrase is "KOroooro fl JIIO6JIIO leJiOBeKa" ["a person who I love"]. This is a phrase which implies an intimate relationship, has a narrow range of applicability and gives a perception that the man is speaking of a woman. Thus, it is unlikely to be reported in same sex Russian interactions since it has a homosexual connotation. When commenting on a positive same sex relationship, Russians are more likely to say "You are a good guy" rather than "I like you." In English, both are acceptable and used frequently. Thus, Russians would be unlikely to report tbey were angry at someone they "loved" if it was a same sex stimulus and this would account for the lower frequency in the Russian sample. Anger vs. Annoyance Our conception posits that anger is a socially constructed feeling which differs from what we call annoyance. In response to the question about this, 85% of participants said they could make this differentiation. However, this was more likely to be true for the Americans. In fact, only 76% of Russians reported they could make the distinction as compared to 93% of Americans. Why then would 24% percent of Russians believe they could not differentiate between annoyance and anger? Again, we turn to language for the answer. Kassinove and Sukhodolsky (1995), Tanaka-Matsumi (1995), and Russell (1991; 1995) have each noted that so-called "basic"

320


feelings are unlikely to exist and that the languages of each culture structure emotion experiences differently. In English, anger is dimensionalized. Thus, Spielberger (1988) defined it asapsychobiological state which varies in intensity from mild annoyance or aggravation, through the mid range of anger, to the extreme of fury and rage. In English, anger is the single word that best represents the middle range of the personal/phenomenological experience. Other words such as petulant, surly, or testy have additional behavioral or physiological connotations and others still (such as "pissed off) can refer to the whole range of intensity. In contrast, Russian has a series of words for the middle range ofthe personal experience {zlost, gnev, and serditsya), each having some conceptual differences while still referring to phenomenology. Thus, Sukhodolsky (in Kassinove & Sukhodolsky, 1995, p. 20) wrote: When faced with the need to translate the word anger into Russian, I (DS) have a numher of words to choose from since we conceptualize anger in differing ways. Roughly speaking, "ziost" refers to the subjective experience of anger which is not justified from the standpoint of social rules, and is always negative. A person in a state of "zlost" is said to be bad tempered, childish, and immature... On the other hand, while "gnev" is also negative it can have the connotation of a socially approved emotional state. When wronged or mistreated, or whenfightingfor your country, a person has the right to feel "gnev." "Gnev" refers to a more intense state than "zlost," but still refers to anger rather than rage, which is called "yarost." Also, the milder word "zlost" does not refer to the milder English word annoyance. Annoyance is "rasdrazhenie." The difficulty that those 24% in the Russian sample reported in differentiating annoyance from anger may thus reflect our use of "zlost" in the Russian version of the questionnaire as the equivalent word for anger. If we had asked whether they could differentiate annoyance ("rasdrazhenie") on the one hand from anger ("zlost" or "gnev") on the other, the results may have more directly paralleled the American data. With regard to the experience itself, anger was reported to be less frequent, more intense, and of longer duration than annoyance. These findings are congruent with common and psychometric notions that anger is a state which at any moment is perceived as being more or less intense, and which may linger over time. Russians were less likely to report frequent anger, and to report that their anger was of shorter duration than that of Americans. This again may be attributed to use ofthe word zlost, which is less likely to be admitted to as a personal experience if we conceive of it as immature. Thus, there is at least a possibility that the Russian self-reports were influence by social desirability factors. In

Kassinove etal.


321

Future studies, this can be examined by administration of a social desirability scale and by the use ot multiple anger words in Russian. The present findings suggest that self-reported anger and aggression are different phenomena. Aggression is an observable pattern of intentional behavior aimed at harming another person (Berkowitz, 1993). While it may sometimes be anger driven, or may be correlated with anger, much of it is instrumental. In contrast, anger is a personal psychobiological experience which, in the social constructivist model, is defmed as a transitory social role we play in culturally sanctioned situations. Across both countries in the current sample, and as reported by Averill (1983), there was little evidence that anger was likely to be expressed in aggression. During the reported anger episodes Americans and Russians alike reported wanting to yell, argue, be sarcastic, complain, and/or control and eliminate their anger. In addition, in both countries, these verbal and/or controlling responses were reported as the most frequent actual behaviors engaged in. Anger, thus, may be seen as a unified set of cognitions, behaviors, verbalizations and biophysical patterns sanctioned somewhat differently from aggression within a culture. The American participants, interestingly, were more likely to want to engage in argumentative or aggressive responding and more often reported that they did hit or destroy something. Given the rising crime rate in Russia, and the increase in available violent television programs which is seen as one cause of American violence (Eron, 1987), it will be interesting to see if this difference continues over time. Participants were also asked about the outcomes of their anger episodes. Overall, more than half reported a positive outcome. This was noted in 61 % of the American sample and half of the Russian sample, and was reported equally by men and women. Regrettably we did not ask what made the outcomes positive. This would have added greater insight into the anger experience, and such exploration is recommended in future studies. Nevertheless, positive affect following anger was reported by a mean of 10% of male and female participants while negative affect emerged in about 15% of participants. These low frequencies suggest other forces, rather than catharsis or satisfaction, may be controlling anger expression. In both countries, about half of the participants did not report recognizing any personal strengths or faults after their anger episode. This suggests a general tendency to "forget" the incident and not use it to evaluate their own interpersonal interactions. In contrast, more Americans than Russians reported recognizing their own strengths, and both weaker and stronger interpersonal relationships following anger. Although American and Russian participants were both more likely to lose

322


rather than gain respect for the cause ot their anger, this was again more often true for American participants. Thus, Americans were more likely to review anger episodes once they were over, and to draw conclusions about themselves and others. Sex Differences A number of sex differences were found. Women in both countries were more likely to experience anger at home, while men (who might be more likely to work and/or drink) were more likely to experience it in a public place. Women in both countries were also more likely to be angry at a loved person, as compared to men. Sex differences emerged on the anger expression dimension as well. American men more often wanted to hit, while women more often wanted to use sarcasm or resolve the problem. Russian women more often wanted to complain by comparison to Russian men, and reported that they actually did so. Russian men, conversely, were more likely to report that they actually did fight. Following anger, recognition of their own strengths and loss of respect for the cause of their anger was more often reported by American women than American men. In both countries, men were more likely to report that they had "no reaction" after the anger passed by comparison to women. Men, in keeping with the common stereotype, were seemingly less likely to think about the episode and to have other feelings emerge. Thus, our findings contrast with those of Averill (1983) who found few sex difference except that women were more likely to cry, and of Buss and Perry (1992) who used the traditional psychometric method and found no sex differences. This highlights the importance of a multimethod and multisample approach to the study of anger (Cambell & Fisk, 1959). In spite of some country and sex differences, the overall pattern of findings seem quite similar for the American and Russian men and women. The country and sex differences which were present, were far overshadowed by the similarities. Anger can be conceived of as a personal experience which can be self-reported, which varies in intensity, frequency and duration and can be differentiated from related states such as annoyance. It was typically triggered by the unexpected actions of a close person, at home, during the afternoon or evening hours, and was associated with verbal behaviors such as yelling, arguing and making sarcastic remarks. Although anger may be uncomfortable while it is being experienced, many participants perceived the outcome of their experience to be positive, and such outcomes are likely to reinforce the continuation of the experience and pattern of expression. Anger may be reinforced with

Kassinove el al.


varying levels of periodic payoffs, which would make it resistant to extinction. The universalist position about feelings such as anger suggests similar patterns will be found in different societies, although manifestations will vary as a function of opportunities and sanctioned learning histories across cultures. The present data are supportive of such a position.

REFERENCES Anastasi, A., Cohen, N., & Spatz, D. (1948). A study of fear and anger in college students through the controlled diary method. Journal ofGenetic Psychology, 73, 243-249. Averill, J.R. (1982). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New York: Springer/Verlag. Averill, J.R. (1983). Studies on anger and aggression: Implications for theories of emotion. American Psychologist, 38, 1145-1160. Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York: McGraw-Hill. Berry, J.W., Poortinga, Y.H., Segall, M.H., & Dasen, RR. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press. Buss, A.H. & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459. Cambell, D. & Fiske, D. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105. Deffenbacher, J.L. (1992). Trait anger: Theory, findings and implications. In CD. Sp\e\beTge.T&}.U.Butcher (Eds.), Advances in Personality Assessment (Vo\. 9). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Deffenbacher, J.L. (1994). Anger reduction: Issues, assessment, and intervention strategies. In W. Siegman &T.W. Smith (Eds.),Anger, hostility, and the heart (pp. 239-269). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Deffenbacher, J.L. (1995). Ideal treatment package for adults with anger disorders

(pp. \5\-\72).lnli.Kass\nove(Ed.),Angerdisorders:Definition,diagnosis, and treatment. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis. Deffenbacher, J.L., Oetting, E.R. and Lynch, R. (1994). Development of a driving anger scale. Psychological Reports, 74, 83-91. Dix, T. (1991). The affective organization of parenting. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 3-25. Eron, L. (1987). The development of aggressive behavior from the perspective of a developing behaviorism. American Psychologist, 42, 425-442. Gates, G.S. (1926). An observational study of anger. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 9, 325-331. Kassinove, H. & Sukhodolsky, D.G. (1995). Anger disorders: Basic science and practice issues. In H. Kassinove (Ed.),Anger disorders: Definition, diagnosis and treatment (pp. 1-26). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis. Kopper, B.A. & Epperson, D.L. (1996). The experience and expression of anger: relationships with gender, gender role socialization, depression, and mental health functioning. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 158-165. Meltzer, H. (1933). Students' adjustment in anger. Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 285-309.

324

JOURNAL OF .SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY

Russell. J.A. (1991). Culture and the categorization of emotion. Psvchotogicat Bidletin, //O, 426-450. Russell, J.A. (1995). Facial expressions of emotion: What lies beyond minimal universality. Psychological Bulletin. 118. 379-391. Siegman A.W. & Smith, T.W. (Eds.). (1994). Anger, hostilitv and the heart. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum. Spielberger, CD. (1988). Professioncd Matiualfor the State-Trait Anger E.xpression Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Tanaka-Matsumi, J.( 1995). Cross-cultural perspectives on anger. In H. Kassinove (Ed.), Anger disorders: Definition, diagnosis and treatment (pp. 81-90). Washington DC: Taylor & Francis. Tedeschi, J.T. & Felson, R.B. (1994). Violence, aggression and coercive actions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Thomas, S. (Ed.). (1993). Women and anger. New York: Springer.

,102 ,