Thesis (Ph. D.)--Florida State University, 2006. / Advisor: Janet Kistner, Florida State University, College of Arts and Sciences, Dept. of Psychology. Title and description from dissertation home page (viewed Sept. 13, 2006). Document formatted into pages; contains vii, 76 pages. Includes bibliographical references.

No description available.

No description available.

In this study the controversial issue of whether to express or not to express anger was investigated. Three different approaches to dealing with anger in an experimental setting with couples were examined. The results support the notion presented by Holt (1970) and Deutsch (1969) that there may be constructive and destructive ways of dealing with anger in an interpersonal relationship, and argue against the conclusions of Berkowitz (1970) and Ellis, (1976) that the expression of anger is so dangerous that it should be avoided. Following role-play of vignettes of typical marital conflicts, subjects in one condition made I-Statements to their partners about their feelings, subjects in a second condition made You-Statements, and subjects in the No-Expression condition listened to a lecture. On outcome measures designed to tap anger, happiness, emotional closeness and distance from partner, liking for partner, other positive and negative feelings, and empathy for partner, I-Statement subjects consistently reported more positive change in their feelings than did You-Statement subjects, and rated their partners as having significantly more empathy in paraphrasing their positions, feelings, beliefs, and wishes. The No-Expression condition did not differ from the I-Statement on variables which measured feelings on anger, happiness, and other "good" and "bad" feelings. However, the No-Expression condition was more like the You-Statement condition in failing to decrease emotional distance or increase measures of empathy, agreement, and feeling understood. Neutral activity which involves time out from interaction with the partner may help to dissipate anger, but seems not to enhance "intimacy," as indicated by lack of change on the variables which involve mutuality and exchange. The I-Statement condition is viewed as superior to either the No-Expression condition or You-Statement condition in conflict resolution, as the I-Statement condition brings about both the dissipation of anger and the restoration of intimacy. It is concluded that there is no evidence from this study, which involves moderate emotional arousal, that avoiding expression of feeling in a conflict situation is superior to talking about the feelings engendered by the conflict. However, I-Statements lead to more constructive changes in feelings and in one's capacity to empathize than do You-Statements.

No description available.

This screenplay, dealing with the theme of anger, is divided into three acts: setup, confrontation and resolution, respectively. Beginning in medias res, flashbacks are employed for expositions of the two main characters, Connor Tracy, alias the Angry Charmer, and Howard Goldberg. Act I opens with Connor at the wheel of a van, driving wildly, Howard accompanying. The setup is established. Act IlI returns to the careening van and then flashbacks to the college meeting of Connor and Howard. By the end of the act, the two, now unwilling relatives, go off on a European trip together. The confrontation has begun in earnest. Act III resolves the problem of Connor's anger through the purgative experi ences of the vacation, in particular the climactic ending.

Thesis advisor: James Keenan / Thesis advisor: Brian Dunkle / From its earliest days, Christianity has debated about when and how force can be used to repel harm without incurring sin. Although moderation and restriction have often been advocated both on a personal and on a social level, strict passivity has rarely been the proposed solution in mainstream Christianity when individuals or nations are confronted with harm. The Just War tradition, in its many variations, was born precisely out of this desire to make sense of how force can be used in a Christian way. And it soon became the prevalent theory throughout Christianity to address issues of violence, war, and force in general. What this thesis intends to argue is that Just War theory, despite all its pervasiveness, is flawed in some crucial aspects when scrutinized from a Christian viewpoint. Three such aspects seem to be especially relevant: Just War tradition is not grounded enough in Scripture; its jus ad bellum and jus in bello criteria do not protect in a satisfactory way the innocent who face harm; and it is a theory that is only reactive to force being imposed upon others. Because of these three flaws, it will be claimed that in the process of giving its support to Just War theory Christianity has largely forgotten an older, broader tradition. The “be angry, but do not sin” tradition has Scriptural and philosophical roots that, when combined, can bring a Christian virtue ethics to a much better understanding of when and how forceful intervention in the social sphere is required. At the very least, this anger tradition does not fall prey to the three criticisms that are addressed towards Just War – and that seems to make it especially valuable. Righteous anger, then, and not Just War, should be what guides Christianity in its thinking about how and when force can be used without incurring sin. That is the contention of this thesis. / Thesis (STL) — Boston College, 2017. / Submitted to: Boston College. School of Theology and Ministry. / Discipline: Sacred Theology.

Very little is known about older womens anger and, to date, nothing is known about how older women talk about anger. By limiting response options on questionnaires and using pre-determined categories to organize interview data, researchers have traditionally determined what constitutes anger and its expression. The unique focus on anger-talk in the current investigation sheds light on how the interviewer and interviewees co-construct anger within the context of a research interview. I conducted a discourse analysis of seven interview transcripts in order to explore two central questions: (1) how is anger co-constructed in participants discourse? and (2) what is accomplished by those constructions? The older women in the present study used minimizing and distancing strategies to construct anger as within their control, in the past, and forgotten. Through these constructions, the interviewees established that they were not angry women.

Very little is known about older womens anger and, to date, nothing is known about how older women talk about anger. By limiting response options on questionnaires and using pre-determined categories to organize interview data, researchers have traditionally determined what constitutes anger and its expression. The unique focus on anger-talk in the current investigation sheds light on how the interviewer and interviewees co-construct anger within the context of a research interview. I conducted a discourse analysis of seven interview transcripts in order to explore two central questions: (1) how is anger co-constructed in participants discourse? and (2) what is accomplished by those constructions? The older women in the present study used minimizing and distancing strategies to construct anger as within their control, in the past, and forgotten. Through these constructions, the interviewees established that they were not angry women.

The present study investigated the Anger IAT as a valid measure of anger. In order to answer this question the relationship between the Anger IAT and traditional measures of anger, anxiety, and self esteem were examined for convergent and divergent validity. It was hypothesized that the Anger IAT measure would be moderately to highly correlated with the State Trait Anger Expression Inventory- 2 (STAXI-2), correlated less with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and correlated least with the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (RSES). Additionally, to demonstrate that the Anger IAT measure reduces a person??s ability to fake good, social desirability is hypothesized to have a moderating effect between the Anger IAT and the STAXI-2. A total of 60 subjects participated in this investigation, 42 of which were female and 18 were males. Furthermore, there were 20 Caucasian, 34 Hispanic, and 6 African American participants. It was found that the Anger IAT was correlated with several scales of the STAXI-2. The Anger IAT correlated less with the STAI and least with the RSES. Furthermore, it was found that the Anger IAT measure reduced the participant??s ability to fake good.