Ways of dealing with various kinds of anger

[firecat]

http://sarahmichigan.livejournal.com/520259.html discusses so-called myths of pop psychology (as described in the book 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions about Human Behavior by Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, John Ruscio and Barry L. Beyerstein).

One of the myths discussed is "It's better to express anger to others than to hold it in." I haven't read the book, but sarahmichigan sums up the book's viewpoint as "Expressing anger, whether verbally or by punching a pillow, generally makes you angrier and more aggressive."

I've done a lot of reading on emotion, some of it from a Buddhist perspective. I think the myth as stated is in fact a myth much of the time, but not always. So I left these comments.

I agree that "It's better to express anger to others than to hold it in" is a myth if it's stated as a universal fact. But I don't think that "It's better to hold anger in than to express it to others" is true either. I think it depends on context and on the individual.
...
I'll have to read the original book to know more about the studies, but my guess is that experimental design was limited to making someone angry about something specific in the moment, and the studies did not test anger that builds up over time regarding long-term situations.

Also I wonder if any of the studies controlled for the level of physical arousal. Given a particular irritant, some people get more aroused than others.

Also I wonder if they studied the self-reported quality of the anger, as opposed to just the physical arousal symptoms.

When the myth is "it's better to vent than to hold it in," you have to define "better." Does this refer merely to how long the physical arousal lasts, or does it refer also to the internal sense of the quality of the arousal (how the person feels)?

If we're talking just physical arousal, then I agree ignoring it will make it go away faster. But ignoring it might also feel very painful/difficult while the arousal lasts. Whereas if you do something with the arousal, it might stick around longer, but the arousal might start to feel better internally.

For me, if my anger level (the physical arousal I feel) is "mild" or "moderate," and the anger is due to an immediate one-time irritant (as opposed to a repetitive irritant or a long-term situation) then it will dissipate quickly if I don't do anything. And since I mostly don't like feeling that low level of arousal, I tend to choose the method that will make it go away the fastest.

But if my physical arousal/anger is very strong, then suppressing my desire to do something physical feels really painful. The same applies if my physical arousal includes both anger and anxiety (which is often the case). I will still be aroused for a while if I do something physical (cry/scream/punch pillows/yell), and I might be aroused for longer, but the arousal doesn't feel as painful.

When I wrote "anger that builds up over time regarding long-term situations," I was thinking specifically of anger that develops out of repeated experiences of discrimination, oppression, or abuse. I think it's too simplistic to say that "holding in" these kinds of anger rather than retelling them to other people is "better."

sarahmichigan reported "[the authors] also mention that coupling anger with productive problem solving *can* be helpful." So political anger might be covered under that, if retelling the incidents is part of a strategy for addressing the problem.

What is your experience?

Comments

[sqbr]

Wow, I found her annoyingly smug: "I've found certain types of venting helpful in some circumstances" "You just THINK you find it helpful."

Yet from the articles she linked "empirical studies have shown that catharsis, when coupled by an active treatment component, is beneficial (Littrell, 1998) - namely, therapies that teach clients to find a new way to regard the emotion-eliciting stimuli"

EDIT: Missed on of the links. We also have "long term concealed anger can be quite destructive to the person".

Afaict "expressing" here specifically means expressing angrily, as opposed to, say, calmly talking about one's feelings or the source of anger with a goal of figuring out how to deal with them.

So yes, simple yelling/pushing pillows etc with no other purpose but catharsis isn't helpful, but that doesn't mean talking about what made you angry is always bad.

And there's no statistical difference (afaict) between "Most people overexpress anger and a minority under express, thus on average people should express anger less" and "Expressing anger is always bad". "Studies have shown this is generally beneficial" is not the same as "It has been conclusively be proven that this is the right thing for you to do right now".

Personally I've found it absolutely vital for me to get better at working through my anger so I can figure out what's making me angry and either do something about it or accept I can't. Like I am right now with her post!

[firecat]

Well said.

Pop psych encourages smugness because there's this whole idea of "we know what's inside you better than you do." And books about myths encourage smugness because they encourage a sense of superiority: "Tsk, tsk, how can anyone believe these things?"

I would call this a myth: "Anger is a pressure that builds up and the only healthy way to address it is to vent the pressure." (Where "vent" means yell, hit things, and so on.) In other words, I don't believe in the pressure cooker metaphor of emotions.

I also don't believe in catharsis theory. I think reliving negative experiences in a safe space can feel good and can be part of a healing toolbox, but I don't think by itself it causes instant healing.

I like your phrase "working through," because it doesn't have the metaphorical implications of "venting" and so forth.

[alias_sqbr]

Yes, based on those articles I think catharsis and the "pressure cooker" are myths, but that doesn't mean ALL expressions of anger are bad.

I liked the discussion of mindfulness below.