gender, marital status and psychological factors in anger evocation: implication for counselors and...

All rights reserved This work by Wilolud Journals is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

1

Continental J. Arts and Humanities 7 (1): 1 - 10, 2015 ISSN: 2141 - 4092 Wilolud Journals, 2015 http://www.wiloludjournal.com Printed in Nigeria doi:10.5707/cjah.2015.7.1.1.10

RESEARCH PAPER

GENDER, MARITAL STATUS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS IN ANGER EVOCATION: IMPLICATION FOR COUNSELORS AND MANAGERS OF ORGANIZATIONS

1Esau Nanfwang Mwantu, 1Zubairu Kwambo Dagona, 1Retji James Dakas and 2Justice Chidi Ngwama 1Department of Psychology, University of Jos, Jos, Nigeria and 2Crawford University, Igbesa, Ogun State, Nigeria

ABSTRACT Anger is an emotion which has over the years influenced the lives of men and women in very diverse ways. Anger expression among the genders has been found to be one major reason that hampers harmonious living relationships among various people and groups. The present study examined gender differences in anger evocation among Nigerians. A sample of 196 respondents (102 males and 94 females) was selected across four tertiary institutions in Plateau State-Nigeria. The Clinical Anger Scale (CAS) was administered to the respondents in order to collect data for the study. The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics of the mean, standard deviation and Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). The result indicated significant gender differences in the expression of anger and upset among Nigerians F (1, 196) = 1.683, P < 0.05.). Married men and women significantly differ in the events that provoke them to anger F (1, 196) = 1.202, P < 0.05. Psychological factors also influence anger evocation in male and female Nigerians (F (1, 196) = 221.269; P > .05. It was concluded that anger expression is significantly related to gender. The implications of these findings were discussed with respect to social interaction within the family, at work, and in the society and some recommendations made to help family counselors and managers of organizations.

KEYWORDS: anger, counselors, gender, managers, marital status, psychological factors

Received for Publication: 11/04/15 Accepted for Publication: 16/06/15 Corresponding Author: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION Anger or upset is an essential variable that can have psychologically negative impact on the peaceful and harmonious co-existence of people. The negative impact of anger among men and women is quite enormous which as a result, has scattered and scuttled many relationships among different people including husbands and wives, friends, relations, and colleagues at work; among communities and nations. Because of the importance of this concept in advancing useful information about human emotions in particular and human social interaction in general, it has over the years attracted the attention of researchers in different fields of endeavour.

According to Dafoore (2006) an anger management researcher, anger is described as a pressure cooker which is held for certain amount of time before it explodes. Bonigk and Steffgen (2013) note that anger is an emotion that is related to an individuals cognitive and psychological interpretation of having been offended, wronged, unfairly treated or even denied; and a tendency to react through retaliation. Psychologists in their research on this concept have recognized three types of anger and upset that is quite often exhibited by people namely hasty and sudden


2

Mwantu et al.,: Continental J. Arts and Humanities 7 (1): 1 - 10, 2015

anger, settled and deliberate anger, and dispositional anger (Campbell and Muncer, 1987; Cox, Stabb and Hulgus, 2000; Russ, 1989). Campbell and Muncer for example, explained that the first two forms of anger are episodic in nature. To them, hasty and sudden anger is a connected impulse for self-preservation while the settled and deliberate anger is a reaction to perceived deliberate harm or unfair treatment by others. The third form (dispositional anger) is related more to character traits than to instincts or cognition. For example, irritability, sullenness, and churlishness are all associated with dispositional traits.

Gottman and Natavous (1993) note that motivation for anger often involves revenge or punishment while Averill (1982) argues that anger is a socially constructed syndrome consisting of expressive delays, physiological arousal and responses and subjective experiences that are largely determined by social roles and functions of culture embedded within the individual. Anger is generally believed to have a universally recognized facial display and a distinct psycho-physiological correlate in cross cultural studies of facial recognition (Allen and Haccount, 2010; Brody, Lovas and Hay, 1995; Ekman, 1994). Ekman further noted that facial expression of anger and upset among the genders is however, difficult to label and recognized.

Anger is similar in many respects to other emotions such as frustration, distress, hostility and rage (Frijda, 2010; Tavris, 2003). Frijda (2010) further concluded that anger is caused almost universally by harm inflicted on skin, possession, or status. Mesquite and Frijda (1992) however, suggested five antecedents for anger expression among the genders to include frustration, insult, violation of someones rights, physical threat, and being the recipient of another persons anger (transferred aggression). Thomas (1989) cited the most common elicitor of anger and upset to be breach of personal relationships, followed by being treated unfairly. Unfortunately, only a few studies have tried to address the extent to which these reasons for the evocation of anger and upset apply equally to men and women or even differ in them (Brody, 1993; Brody, Lovas and Hay, 1995; Faber and Burns, 1996; Kring and Gordon, 1998).

The concept of anger has been variedly studied by researchers in psychology from different theoretical traditions. Many theories have been formulated to explain the concept of anger and upset; as a result of this, diverse theories exist today that try to provide explanations to this behaviour. Such theories include the implicit theories proposed by Karen Wach (1950), Ekman (1971), and Bowlby (1973); the evolutionary theory of emotions (Muncer, 1975), the balance theory (Gottman and Natavous, 1993), and the cognitive-behavioural theory (Beck and Weisher, 2007), among many others. The implicit theorists believe that people are born with basic set of emotional responses that appear to exist across all cultures and religions. These theorists generally view anger as an innate concept that can be elicited by both internal and external stimuli (Bowlby, 1973; Buss, 1989; Ekman, 1971; Wach, 1950). For example, this group of researchers found in their studies that one month old infants were able to express interest, joy, surprise, sadness, anger, disgust and fear (Bowlby, 1973; Wach, 1950) which is different forms of emotion.

The cognitive-behavioural theory (Beck and Weisher, 2007), assumes that individuals who experience any kind of emotional distress such as depression, anxiety, and anger are usually engaging in biased ways of thinking. They believe that the way a person acts results from his or her learning and past experiences. To them, a persons propensity for a certain behaviour such as aggression or violence that is due to anger or provocation may be influenced by whether or not that behaviour was reinforced (rewarded, punished or learnt) in the past. The theoretical framework of this study was therefore, formulated on the bases of all the above stated theories. The study believes that our emotion of anger and upset is due to traits found in us, inherited from parents, or even learnt from the environment through interaction with others.

A comprehensive study of anger and upset among women that included interview and self-report measures found the most common elicitors of anger among women to be interpersonal, intrapersonal, and societal factors (Eagly and Steff, 1986). Some studies that have directly examined gender differences in the evocation of anger and upset however, failed to find differences between men and women (Allen and Haccount, 2010; Averill, 1982; Bowlby,


3


1973). Frodi (1977) and Kring and Gordon (1998) for example observed that both men and women reported feeling angry after being provoked by the opposite sex. Other studies however, found significant differences in the evocation of anger and upset among the genders such as men exhibiting more anger and upset following female aggression than male aggression and women reporting having greater anger following aggression from a male (Buss, 1989; Harris, 1993).

One important factor that distinguishes studies that do and do not find gender differences in the evocation of anger and upset according to Tavris (2003), is the context in which the reasons for anger and upset are asked about, specifically, in the context of close relationships or interaction between men and women. Brody, Lovas and Hay (1995) found that although both men and women reported betrayal of trust to be the most provoking elicitor of anger and upset; women were reported exhibiting more anger following betrayal of trust, rebuff, negligence, and unwarranted criticism than men. Buss (1989) further found that women reported greater anger and upset than men following mens sexual aggressiveness, condescending remarks, inconsiderate treatment, neglecting or rejecting behaviour. Evocation of anger and upset among males and females can potentially mobilize psychological resources and boost determination towards the correction of wronged behaviour, promotion of social justice, communication of negative sentiment and redress of grievances (Ekman, 1994; Tavris, 2003).

On the other hand, many studies have pointed that anger and upset can be destructive especially when it does not find appropriate outlet in expression. Anger and upset in its strong form, impairs ones ability to process information and to exert cognitive control over ones behaviour (Frijda, 1992; Tavris, 2003). For example, an angry person may lose his or her objectivity, empathy, prudence or thoughtfulness and may cause harm to others. People feel angry when they sense someone they care about offended them and when they are certain about the nature and cause of the angering event (Buss, 1989).

Anger is a multidimensional emotion that involves an appraisal of responsibility for wrongdoing by another person or entity and often includes the goal of correcting the perceived wrongness (Gibson and Callister, 2010; Bonigk and Steffgen, 2013). Anger reactions bear functional and dysfunctional implications for work life and performance as well as for individual well-being. Traditionally, research on anger and even more so in the organizational context, focuses on the maladaptive consequences of anger and thus the negative aspect of anger.

Psychologically, anger may result in stress, a sense of guilt and crisis, severe loss of personal productivity at home and at the workplace; as well as an inability to meet personal social responsibilities (Averill, 1982; Bowlby, 1973; Campbell and Muncer, 1987). Anger brings confusion and misery rather than peace, happiness and fulfillment among people and between members of organizations.

This study therefore, aimed at examining gender differences in the evocation of anger and upset among Nigerians. The study tried to examine whether there are conceptual differences that exist between Nigerian males and females in the evocation of anger and upset and the psychological implications of such behaviour for social interaction at home, in the workplace and the community at large. Specifically, the study had the following objectives to pursue:

(i) To investigate the influence of gender in the evocation of anger and upset among Nigerians. (ii) To investigate the influence of marital status of a respondent in the evocation of anger and upset

among Nigerian males and females. (iii) To examine the influence of psychological factors in anger evocation among Nigerian males and

females.

In order to achieve this, the following hypotheses were formulated and tested. 1. Female Nigerians would significantly evoke anger and upset in their social relationships more than male

Nigerians would do.


4


2. Gender and marital status would have significant influence on female Nigerians with respect to their evocation of anger and upset more than male Nigerians.

3. Psychological factors would have significant influence on female Nigerians with respect to their evocation of anger and upset more than male Nigerians.

METHOD Design This study utilized a multi-factorial design with three independent variables (IVs) and one dependent variable (DV). Gender, marital status and psychological factors of the respondents were the independent variables used in the study while anger evocation or upset was the dependent variable. The IV (gender) had two levels (male and female); marital status had three levels (married, divorce and not married) and psychological factors was measured at three levels (cognitive, affective and behavioral response perspectives) while the DV was anger evocation, respectively. The study was therefore, a 2x3x3 multi-factorial design.

Research Setting This study was conducted using employees of four tertiary institutions located in three Local Government Areas of Plateau State- Nigeria; these are the University of Jos and the Federal School of Forestry located in Jos North Local Government Area; Plateau State Polytechnic Barkin Ladi in Barkin Ladi Local Government Area, and the Federal College of Education Pankshin, in Pankshin Local Government Area. The reason for the choice of respondents from these institutions is that they are a mixture of federal and state owned organizations whose employees cut across many ethnic nationalities including the host communities of the institutions.

Participants Participants for this particular study were 196 employees (102 males and 94 females) drawn from four tertiary institutions in Plateau State. Ages of the participants ranged from 18-50 years with a mean of 29.27 years; SD = 8.73. Participants cut across the three main religions in Nigeria namely Christianity, Islam and the African Traditional Religion (ATR).

Instrument The psychological scale utilized for data collection in this study was the Clinical Anger Scale (CAS). The Clinical Anger Scale was developed by Snell Jr, Gum, Shuck, Mosley and Hite (1995) mainly to measure the level of anger exhibited by a person. It is a 21-item objective self-report feelings inventory developed to measure the syndrome of clinical anger. The following symptoms of anger are measured by the CAS items: anger now, anger about the future, anger about things, angry-hostile feelings, annoying others, angry about self, angry misery, wanting to hurt others, shouting at people, irritated now, social interference, decision interference, alienating others, work interference, sleep interference, fatigue, appetite interference, health interference, thinking interference, and sexual interference (Snell Jr et al, 1995).

The CAS has 21 groups of statements (4 statements per group) and respondents were to select the single statement that best described how they felt (e g item 1: A= I do not feel angry, B= I feel angry, C= Iam angry most of the time now, and D= Iam so angry most of the time that I cannot stand it). The four statements in each cluster varied in symptom intensity, with more intense clinical anger being associated with statement D. Each cluster of statements was scored on a 4-point Likert scale with A= 0, B= 1, C= 2, and D= 3. Participants responses on the CAS were summed so that higher scores corresponded to greater clinical anger (21 items; range 0-63).

A scoring procedure was adopted such that CAS scores is accomplished through the following interpretive scores 0 13 = minimal clinical anger; 14 19 = mild clinical anger; 20 28 = moderate clinical anger; and 29 63 = severe clinical anger. The Cronbarch alpha reliability coefficient of the entire scale is .94 for both males and females. It is


5


.95 for (males only) and .92 for (females only). The CAS also had a high validity coefficient score of r = .82 for both males and females.

Procedure The data were gathered in the month of December, 2014. Questionnaires were administered to the respondents at various points of interaction within the institutions covered in the study. After explaining the goals of the study to the authorities of the institutions visited for the study, permissions were granted for the study to be conducted. Participation was voluntary and informed consent was therefore, obtained by participants signing the Informed Consent Form that was attached to the Questionnaire. Since all participants were literate, there was no problem with completion of the Questionnaires. Participants were instructed not to indicate their names anywhere on the material administered to them.

Because participation in the study was voluntary, no financial incentive was given to the participants. It took all the respondents an average time of 25 minutes to complete all sections of the Questionnaire. The researchers and two trained Assistants personally administered 200 questionnaires over a period of one week, out of which 196 questionnaires were retrieved with usable data. This represents 98% return rate. The remaining 4 questionnaires were not returned after they were administered to the respondents; probably due to the tied schedules of the respondents.

Data analysis The data collected for this study were statistically analyzed. The statistical analyses were carried out by means of the SPSS 19 Program (SPSS, 2009). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze socio-demographic variables of the participants such as age, sex, marital status and religion. The inferential statistical test used was the Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). All the tests assumed 5% level of significance.

RESULTS The results were based on the hypotheses formulated for the study. Three hypotheses were tested in the study using Multivariate Analysis of Variance statistics (MANOVA) and the results are presented below. Result on Table 1 shows that there are significant gender differences in the expression of anger and upset between male and female Nigerians. The Analysis of Variance revealed that both males and females do significantly differ in the expression of anger and upset when provoked F (63, 196) = 1.683, P


6


The study further explored the influence of psychological factors on the evocation of anger and upset between males and females (See Table 1). Results of the analysis of variance indicated a significant influence of psychological factors on the expression of anger and upset among the respondents (F (1, 196) = 221.269; P > .05. (see Table 1). The result indicated that both males and females are significantly influenced by psychological factors to evoke anger but only differ in the angering events that cause the provocation.

DISCUSSION The primary aim of this study was to investigate whether there are significant gender differences existing among Nigerians in their anger evocation and its implication for family counselors and managers of Nigerian organizations. The study specifically aimed at finding out the extent to which anger and upset significantly affects social relationships of men and women in various settings including the home, workplace, and the society in general. The first hypothesis stated that female Nigerians would significantly evoke anger and upset in their social relationships more than male Nigerians would do. The study found significant gender differences in the evocation of anger F (63, 196) = 1.683, P < 0.05. Result of the analysis revealed that both males and females significantly differ in the expression of anger and upset in their social interactions with others whether in the family, the organization or the community. The result indicated that differences exist between males and females especially in the angering events that provoke them.

Responses of the participants in this study revealed that the most common elicitors of anger in females were sexual aggression by a male, betrayal of trust in a relationship, frustration, unfair treatment, negligence and insult. For males, the most common elicitors of anger were withholding of sex by a woman, infliction of social status, insult, betrayal of trust, and witnessing someones rights being violated.

The result obtained from the test of this particular hypothesis corroborates previous studies such as Buss (1989), Harris (1993) and Miron-Spektor and Rafaeli (2009) that all found similar results in their respective investigations. Across both samples, males expressed upset about females being neglecting or rejecting, self-centered, moody and physically self-absorbed as well as being sexually withholding. The study like in Buss (1989) found strong evidences for mens expression of anger and upset about womens withholding of sex. Females expressed anger and upset more than did males about tendencies towards being condescending, unfaithful, inconsiderate, unnecessarily abusive, sexually aggressive and possessive, and emotionally constricted (Bonigk and Steffgen, 2013; Buss, 1989; Miron-Spektor, and Rafaeli, 2009).Other group differences for habitual anger reactions based on gender showed that men have a slightly higher tendency to vent their anger than women and tend to ruminate less over the anger incident than women.

The implication of this result to the genders in particular and the family institution in general is that when couples are easily angered by factors such as the ones stated above, it tempers with social interaction within the family and further affects the peaceful co-existence of the family members. When anger is part of a family's tradition, it spreads itself much like a virus to future generations. The wider the spread, the more difficult the anger is to contain. The effect of anger in families is usually apparent in the way that members relate with one another. Our earliest experiences communicating and relating to others occurs within the family. Patterns of anger in relationships are then taken and recreated in later relationships outside the family including workplace. Such anger can lead to destructive behaviour and human vices such as uncooperative attitude, fighting, divorce, and sometimes even murder in the family (Mwantu, Kazi, Damilep and Mwanti, 2014).

The second hypothesis which states that gender and marital status would have significant influence on female Nigerians with respect to their evocation of anger and upset more than male Nigerians was supported. The study found diverse sources of difference between the sexes that are especially striking including upset about the spouse being condescending, possessive, rejecting, abusive, inconsiderate, self-absorbed, moody, emotionally constricted, and self-centered. Two sex differences emerged in this particular study that is especially striking. Women showed a


7


higher level of upset about men being inconsiderate and condescending while men on the other hand, showed higher incidence of women being moody and physically self-absorbed and self-centered.

On the marital front, women were judged to be far more upset than were men by the husbands sexual aggressiveness, whereas men were judged to be more upset than women by the wifes rejection or sexual withholding. Results further supported the hypothesis that within couples, mens dissatisfaction is usually linked with womens sexual withholding, whereas womens dissatisfaction is linked with mens sexual aggressiveness (Bonigk and Steffgen, 2013; Buss, 1989). Women anger according to Thomas (1993) and Dittmann (2003) is misdirected in passive-aggressive maneuvers such as sulking or destructive gossips. They also more often are found to be angry longer, more resentful and less likely to express their anger compared with men (DiGuiseppe and Tafrate, 2003). DiGuiseppe and Tafrate further found that women use indirect aggression by writing off a higher number of people intending to never speak to them again because of their anger with such people.

The third hypothesis states that psychological factors would have significant influence on female Nigerians with respect to their evocation of anger and upset more than male Nigerians. It was discovered in this study that psychological components of behaviour such as the cognitive (thinking), affective (feelings), and the behavioural response components all simultaneously play important roles in the evocation of anger and upset among the respondents. The three components of behaviour are utilized by the individual whether male or female in perceiving and determining what is provocative and indeed the level of such provocation. These components of behaviour also influence the mode of thinking, feeling and response rate of the affected individual to the angering event. Cognitive and affective factors influence human perception and hence the anger status of the individual and his or her behavioural responses via his/her reactions. In this study too, these psychological factors had influenced the evocation of anger and upset amongst men and women differently partly due to the kind of gender socialization they have received (Dittmann, 2003; Thomas, 1993). According to Thomas, men have been encouraged to be more overt with their anger. For example, because of the way that the genders are socialized, if boys have a conflict on the playground, they act it out with their fists. Girls have been encouraged to keep their anger down; indeed to express it covertly. The study further revealed three common roots to womens anger: powerlessness, injustice and the irresponsibility of other people. This result is consonant with Thomas 1993 conclusion on Womens Anger Study who carried out a large scale investigation involving 536 women between the ages of 25-66 years and concluded that the three factors were responsible for womens anger.

However, while research has not yet suggested that different factors trigger anger in men and women; studies have continued to uncover differences in how men and women experience and express it (Cox, et al, 2003; DiGiuseppe and Tafrate, 2003; Dittmann, 2003). This particular study like DiGiuseppe and Tafrate (2003), found that differences in mens and womens total anger scores were not significant but found significant differences in the way the genders experience and express anger. It was found that men scored higher in physical aggression, and experiences of impulsively dealing with their anger. Men also more often had a revenge motive to their anger and scored higher on coercing other people. This is particularly true as exemplified by the membership of men to women involved in terrorist acts and terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, ISIL and Boko Haram. Women on the other hand, scored higher on passive aggression and were found to be angry longer, more resentful and less likely to express their anger compared with men.

Generally, these experiences have significant implications for the psychological functioning of the genders in the family, in social settings and at work. For example, studies have shown that anger has caused the divorce of marriages (Mwantu, Kazi, Damilep, and Mwanti, 2014; Saposnek and Chip, 2004); and makes people work harder not smarter (Miron-Spektor, Treister, Rafeali, and Schwarz-Cohen, 2011) and affects an employees creativity and level of analytical thinking (Sher, 2013). Other studies have concluded that exposure to anger limit the ways in which people interpret others behaviour and affects their problem-solving ability. When the expression of anger becomes a common occurrence or worse, a lifestyle, it takes a toll on ones health, which is why the subject of anger


8


is so important to discuss openly and honestly (Sher, 2013). This mindset is not useful for situations that require creativity and making novel connections between loosely associated items or ideas.

In organizations, managers open display of anger toward their subordinates or colleagues may not push them toward higher performance. It might only increase employee performance on simple, strictly analytical tasks; but will have negative consequences when employees need to be creative and solve novel problems (Sher, 2013).

Psychologists using psychotherapeutic strategies can however, help individuals manage their anger at home, at work and in the society in three main ways:

(i) Mind Relaxation- Psychologists train clients using a technique called progressive relaxation until such clients are able to fully relax their minds by way of controlling their temper.

(ii) Cognitive therapy- Often the way people think when they are angry makes situations worse. In cognitive therapy, psychologists help patients find alternative ways of positively thinking about and reacting to anger instead of thinking bad about the person or situation.

(iii) Skill development- Learning new behaviours can also help. Parents might learn different ways of less harshly communicating with their children and Managers of organizations learning new and different ways of communicating with their subordinates and colleagues. In order to modify the anger behaviour more effectively, combining the three strategies is best.

REFERENCES Allen, J.G. and Haccount, D.M. (2010). Sex differences in emotionality: A multidimensional approach. Human Relations, 29, 711-722.

Averill, J.R. (1982). Studies on anger and aggression: Implication for the theories of emotion. American Psychologist, 38, 1145-1160.

Beck, A.T. and Weisher, M. (2007). Cognitive Behavioural Theory: In R.J Corsini & D. Wedding (Eds.), Current psychotherapies, Itasca: F.E. Peace cock Publishers.

Bonigk, M. and Steffgen, G. (2013). Effects of habitual anger on employees behaviour during organizational change. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10 (12), 6215-6234.

Bowlby, B.W. (1973). Experience and expression of anger among the genders. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 1, 325-341.

Brody, L.R. (1993). On understanding gender differences in the expression of emotion. Gender roles, socialization, and language. In S. Ablon, D. Brown, E. Khantzian, and J. Mack (Eds.), Human feelings, explorations in affect development and meaning (87-121), New York, Analytic Press.

Brody, L.R., Lovas, G.S. and Hay, D.H. (1995). Gender differences in anger and fear as a function of situational context. Sex Roles, 32, 47-78.

Buss, D.M. (1989). Conflict between the sexes: Strategic interference and the evocation of anger and upset. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 735-747.

Campbell, A. and Muncer, S. (1987). Models of anger and aggression in the social talk of women and men. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 17, 498-511.


9


Cox, D.L., Stabb, S.D., and Hulgus, J.F. (2000). Anger and depression in girls and boys: A study of gender differences. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 110-112.

Defoore, D.F. (2006). Understanding the external expression of anger, body language, physiological responses, and its times in public act of aggression. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

DiGiuseppe, R. and Tafrate, R.C. (2003). The anger disorder Scale Manual. Toronto; Multi-Health Systems.

Dittmann, M. (2003). Anger across the gender divide. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34 (3), 52.

Eagly, A.H. and Steff, V. (1986). Gender and aggressive behaviour: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 3-22.

Ekman, P. (1994). Strong evidence for universality in facial expression: A reply to Russell's mistaken critique. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 268-287.

Faber, S.D. and Burns, J.W. (1996). Anger management style, degree of expressed anger, and gender influence. Cardiovascular recovery from interpersonal harassment. Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 19, 31-53.

Frijda, N. (2010). Universal antecedents exist and are interesting. In P.E. Kman and R.J Davidson (Eds). The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (PP155-162). New York, Oxford University Press.

Frodi, A. (1977). Sex differences in the perception of a provocation: A survey of perceptual and motor skills. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44,113-114.

Gibson, D.E and Callister, R.R (2010). Anger in organizations. Doi:10.1177/01492006369348060, 36,66-93.

Gottmann, M. and Natavous, B. (1993). Linkages between anger repertoire and marital functioning pro-relationship interactional style. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 268-287.

Harris, M.B. (1993). How provoking! What makes men and women angry? Aggressive Behaviour, 19, 199-211.

Kring, A.M. and Gordon, A.H. (1998). Sex differences in emotions: Expression, experience, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 686-703.

Kring, A.M. (2000). Gender and anger. In A.H. Fischer (Ed) Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspective (PP 211-231), New York, Cambridge University Press.

Mesquite, B. and Frijda, N.H. (1992). Cultural variations in emotions: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 179-204.

Miron-Spektor, E. and Rafaeli, A.(2009). The effects of anger in the workplace: When, Where, and Why observing anger enhances or hinders performance. In J.J. Martocchia and H. Liao (eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Volume 28, (pp153-178), Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Miron-Spektor, E., Efrat-Treister, D., Rafeali, A. and Schwarz-Cohen, O. (2011). Others anger makes people work harder not smarter: The effect of observing anger and sarcasm on creative and analytic thinking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (5), 1065-1075.


10


Mwantu, E.N., Kazi, T.T., Damilep, J.Z. and Mwanti, B.Y. (2014). Influence of psychological divorce among parents on childrens psycho-emotional well-being. Nigerian Journal of Applied Behavioural Sciences, 2, 158-164.

Tavris, C. (2003). Anger: The misunderstood emotion. New York. Simon and Schuster.

Thomas, S.P. (1989). Gender differences in anger expression: Health implications. Research in Nursing and Health, 12, 389-398.

Thomas, S.P. (1993). Women and anger. New York: Springer.

Saposnek, D.T. and Chip, R.J.T. (2004). The psychology of divorce. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sher, B.(2011). Work environment, creativity and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1165-1173.

Snell, W.E. Jr, Gum, S.,Shuck, R.L., Mosley, J.A., and Hite,T.L. (1995). The Clinical Anger Scale: Preliminary reliability and validity. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 215-226.

Wach, K.T. (1950). How does anger work inside the body emotions? New York: The Guiliford Press.

gender, marital status and psychological factors in anger evocation: implication for counselors and...

Documents