psychology of angry person essay

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Understanding Anger

Toketemu has been multimedia storyteller for the last four years. Her expertise focuses primarily on mental wellness and women’s health topics. 

Daniel B. Block, MD, is an award-winning, board-certified psychiatrist who operates a private practice in Pennsylvania.

JGI/Tom Grill/Tetra Images/Getty

Anger is an intense emotion you feel when something has gone wrong or someone has wronged you. It is typically characterized by feelings of stress, frustration, and irritation. Everyone feels anger from time to time. It’s a perfectly normal response to frustrating or difficult situations.

Anger only becomes a problem when it’s excessively displayed and begins to affect your daily functioning and the way you relate with people. Anger can range in intensity, from a slight annoyance to rage. It can sometimes be excessive or irrational. In these cases, it can be hard to keep the emotion in check and could cause you to behave in ways you wouldn’t otherwise behave. 

Characteristics 

When we are angry our body goes through certain biological and physiological changes. Examples of biological changes your body might go through include: 

• Increased energy levels 
• Raised blood pressure 
• Spike in hormones like adrenaline and noradrenaline 
• Increase in body temperature  
• Increased muscle tension  

Anger doesn’t look the same in everyone and we all express it in different ways. Some outward characteristics you might notice when you are angry include. 

• Raised voices
• Clenched fists 
• Frowning or scowling 
• A clenched jaw 
• Physically trembling 
• Rapid heartbeats 
• Sweating excessively 
• Pacing excessively 

Complications 

Anger is a completely normal and typically healthy emotion. However, it can be detrimental to both your emotional and physical health when you lose control of it. When you are angry your body goes through some physiological and biological changes.

Your heart rate quickens and your blood pressure spikes. Your body also releases hormones like adrenaline and noradrenaline. Putting your body through these changes often, by repeatedly getting angry, can lead to medical conditions and complications such as:   

• High blood pressure 
• Depression  
• Anxiety 
• Insomnia 
• Substance abuse 
• Gastric ulcers 
• Bowel disease

Identifying Anger 

Anger doesn’t look the same in everyone as we all express it differently. For some people, screaming might be an outlet for their anger while others might express it by physically hitting an object or even another person.

Anger is a normal human emotion, but it’s important to find healthy ways to express it so as not to alienate people around us. Expressing anger healthily is also important for your mental health. 

Anger can be caused by either external or internal influences. A person or an event could make you angry. You could be angry because someone cut in line in front of you in line. You might feel angry when you are emotionally hurt, threatened, in pain, or in a confrontation.

Sometimes we use anger to replace other emotions we would rather not deal with, like emotional pain, fear, loneliness , or loss . In these cases, anger becomes a secondary emotion. Anger could be a reaction to physical pain, a response to feelings of fear, to protect yourself from a perceived attack, or in response to a frustrating situation.

Anger is often caused by a trigger this could be either rational or irrational. Some common triggers that cause anger include: 

• Dealing with the loss of a loved one 
• Losing a job 
• Going through a breakup
• Failing at a job or a task 
• Being fatigued 
• Getting in an accident or getting a condition that causes physical changes in your body (for example, losing your sight or your ability to walk)

Anger could also be a symptom or response to a medical condition. Anger could be a symptom of depression, substance abuse, ADHD , or bipolar disorder . 

Types of Anger

There are three main types of anger. 

• Passive-Aggressive Anger : Here, a person tries to repress their anger to avoid dealing with it but typically ends up expressing it in unhealthy and undermining ways. 
• Assertive Anger : This can be a healthy option for expressing anger. It involves handling anger in a controlled manner by using your words to calmly explain and try to diffuse the situation. Here, anger is expressed in a non-threatening way. 
• Openly Aggressive Anger : This type of anger might be accompanied by physical or verbal aggression such as screaming or hitting things. The aim of this type of anger is typically to hurt the person the anger is directed at emotionally or physically.

Anger can also be expressed in either one of two ways: verbally or nonverbally.

• Verbally : When a person expresses their anger verbally, you are likely to see them raise their voices. They might become insulting and say hurtful things if their anger is directed at another person. 
• Nonverbally : You’ll notice some slight physical changes in a person who expresses their anger nonverbally. They might frown or scowl and clench their jaws and fist. They might also lash out at another person or object, sometimes causing physical damage to the person or object and in some cases even hurting themselves. 

The two ways people express their anger are not mutually exclusive and it’s possible to see a person expressing anger in both ways. 

Anger is a normal emotion we all feel, and for most people, they can find ways to express it in a healthy way. However, some people need treatment. The most common way to treat excessive anger is with therapy.

For most people, it’s easy to identify the triggers and emotions behind their anger. But some people experience anger suddenly and intensely without being able to curb it or identify the triggers behind it.

If you are experiencing frequent and intense bursts of anger that are causing physical and emotional damage to you or the people around you then you might need professional help with dealing with your anger.

Anger management therapy is used to help you learn healthy ways to cope with the emotion.

Finding ways to cope with anger is very important. When we allow anger to take control of our lives, it can affect everything we do. It can damage relationships with our loved ones and cause problems in our workplace. If you’ve been finding it difficult to keep your anger in check in certain situations, here are a couple of coping mechanisms that can help.

• Identify the Cause : The first step to coping with anger is identifying the root cause of your anger. It could be another emotion—maybe one of fear or loneliness. It could be an altercation you had or an unpleasant thought that came to mind.
• Meditate: Meditation is very beneficial in helping to control human emotions. You can start with simple meditation techniques like deep breathing exercises. When faced with a situation that makes you angry, take a second before reacting. You can take several deep breaths to calm yourself or try to count until you feel yourself become calmer. 
• Work Out : Exercising isn’t just great for your physical health—it’s also beneficial for your mental health. It’s also a way to channel out emotions like anger in a useful and productive way. Going for a quick run or swim when you are angry could help defuse the emotion.
• Let It Out : Don’t bottle your anger up. Expressing your anger when you feel it is the healthiest way to get through it. Bottling up the emotion is most likely to cause a sudden and intense outburst when you least expect it. 
• Avoid Triggers: If you are quick to become angry, it’s useful to try to identify and avoid your triggers. If you are often triggered when having a conversation with a particular person or about a particular topic, avoid them or that topic until you’ve learned how to have better control over your anger.

American Psychological Association. How to recognise and deal with anger . 2012

Staicu M, Cuţov M. Anger and health risk behaviors . J Med Life. 2010;3(4):372-375.

Williams R. Anger as a basic emotion and its role in personality building and pathological growth: the neuroscientific, developmental and clinical perspectives. Front Psychol. 2017;8.

By Toketemu Ohwovoriole Toketemu has been multimedia storyteller for the last four years. Her expertise focuses primarily on mental wellness and women’s health topics.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

The influence of anger on empathy and theory of mind

Ronja weiblen.

1 Department of Neurology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany

2 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Translational Psychiatry Unit (TPU), University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany

Noam Mairon

3 School of Occupational Therapy, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

Sören Krach

4 Center of Brain, Behavior and Metabolism (CBBM), University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany

Macià Buades-Rotger

Philipp kanske.

5 Clinical Psychology and Behavioral Neuroscience, Faculty of Psychology, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

6 Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany

7 Department of Psychology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

Ulrike M. Krämer

8 Department of Psychology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany

Associated Data

Data files for all three studies are available in the public repository “OSF”: https://osf.io/mr6fp/ .

Social cognition allows humans to understand and predict other people’s behavior by inferring or sharing their emotions, intentions and beliefs. Few studies have investigated the impact of one’s own emotional state on understanding others. Here, we tested the effect of being in an angry state on empathy and theory of mind (ToM). In a between-groups design we manipulated anger status with different paradigms in three studies (autobiographical recall (N = 45), negative feedback (N = 49), frustration (N = 46)) and checked how this manipulation affected empathic accuracy and performance in the EmpaToM. All paradigms were successful in inducing mild anger. We did not find the expected effect of anger on empathy or ToM performance but observed small behavioral changes. Together, our results validate the use of three different anger induction paradigms and speak for rather weak behavioral effects of mild state anger on empathy and ToM.

Introduction

In everyday life, being angry is often associated with irrational decision making, with saying things one regrets later and with being unable or unwilling to understand or share another person’s point of view (“blinded by rage”). However, surprisingly few studies have formally tested the relationship between anger and understanding or sharing others’ mental states. Studies have found a negative correlation between empathy and anger expressions in children [ 1 , 2 ], as well as impaired empathy in men with a history of legally relevant aggressive behavior [ 3 ]. However, it is unclear if a person’s current state of anger affects understanding and sharing mental states of others. In the present study, we addressed this question by experimentally manipulating anger status before testing participants’ social cognition in established empathy and theory of mind paradigms (empathic accuracy [ 4 ]; EmpaToM [ 5 ]). Both anger and social cognition can be studied as a trait, meaning a relatively stable disposition or ability, or a state, meaning the current situational anger or social evaluations [ 6 ]. In this paper, we will focus on the state aspect of both concepts.

Social cognition refers to how we think about our own or others’ traits, understand others’ feelings, consider a person’s intentions or take the perspective of others into account [ 7 ]. Because humans cannot directly perceive others’ thoughts or feelings, they use their own experiences, thoughts and feelings to understand the internal experiences of others. This involves two complementary systems [ 8 , 9 ]: empathy and theory of mind (ToM) . Empathy describes processes in which people vicariously take on affective states, mental states, facial expressions, and postures of others´, literally sharing their experience [ 10 ]. These phenomena are also coined affective empathy or experience sharing. When it comes to sharing others´ negative emotional states, Singer and Klimecki [ 11 ] distinguish two forms of empathic responses: empathic distress and compassion. When confronted with negative emotions in another person, empathic distress is the emergence of strong, negative, self-related feelings which lead to withdrawal from the situation, while compassion describes positive feelings like warmth and care which are other-related and motivate to approach and help. ToM describes processes in which people take someone else´s perspective by projecting themselves into the situation of others, inferring their thoughts and feelings from the context and their own supposed experience in this situation [ 8 ]. This is also described as cognitive empathy or mentalizing.

Both routes to social cognition require distinguishing between one’s own and the other’s mental state. Interestingly though, only few studies investigated the impact of one’s own mental and especially emotional state on social cognition. For example, in a study involving therapists, pre-session positive affect was negatively correlated with empathy during the session, while pre-session anxiety was positively correlated with ToM performance [ 12 ]. Furthermore, induced sadness in comparison to happiness was found to facilitate ToM performance [ 13 ].

Anger is an emotional state, which varies in intensity from mild annoyance to intense fury and rage [ 14 ]. Recent definitions of anger propose a multidimensional construct with four components: a physiological component including general sympathetic arousal and a change in the level of hormones and neurotransmitters; a cognitive component containing irrational beliefs, automatic thoughts and inflammatory imagery; a phenomenological component including the subjective awareness and labeling of angry feelings and a behavioral component containing facial expressions and verbal and behavioral anger expression strategies [ 15 ]. Extensive research has examined what triggers anger [ 16 – 23 ]. Berkowitz [ 24 ] summarizes that anger is elicited by situations in which people are injured, deceived or betrayed, by situations in which they are physically or psychologically controlled against their will, and by situations where they are prevented from reaching a goal.

Different mechanisms are conceivable through which anger interferes with understanding others. Regarding empathy, the frustrating event preceding the angry state such as goal blocking or personal offense might lead to a higher focus on one’s own needs and thereby reduce compassion and consideration of the others’ state and needs. In line with this, a recent study found that negative mood decreased the neural correlate of empathy for pain (mu suppression) in comparison to neutral or positive mood [ 25 ]. Regarding ToM, increased arousal, as common in an angry state, might generally lower cognitive capacities to take the other’s perspective and infer the other’s mental state. In agreement with this account, a series of studies showed reduced perspective taking in angry participants, which was moderated by the magnitude of induced arousal [ 26 ]. This is somewhat contradictory to the previously mentioned finding that state anxiety, another emotion characterized by arousal, positively correlated with ToM performance [ 12 ]. However, as Litvak and colleagues [ 27 ] pointed out in an overview article of the impact of anger on decision-making, the effects of anger on cognition seem to be different, if not opposite from the effects of other negative emotions such as sadness or anxiety. They attribute this to the differences in appraisal of certainty between the different negative emotions. While anger is accompanied by a sense of certainty about the causes of the angering event, anxiety arises with a feeling of uncertainty about the cause of the event. This appraisal tendency leads to different processing depths. While emotions accompanied by a sense of certainty lead to more stereotyping and heuristic processing, emotions which are accompanied by a sense of uncertainty lead to more systematic, thorough processing [ 28 , 29 ]. Therefore, the effect of arousal on cognition might not be a simple one, with higher arousal interfering more with cognitive performance, but rather an interaction of appraisal tendencies and arousal that lead to different arousal effects for different emotions.

Beyond the tendency of a shallow processing depth, anger is known to influence other cognitive processes such as decision-making and attention [ 30 – 33 ]. Hemenover and Zhang [ 30 ] found that anger activated a defensive optimism that caused participants to deemphasize the importance and impact of negative events. In studies from DeSteno and colleagues [ 34 , 35 ], anger group participants rated angering events as more likely and found angry arguments to be more persuasive than sad arguments. Compared to sad people, angry people found dispositional attributions to be more likely and judged ambiguous events to be more likely caused by another person [ 36 ]. Similarly, the blame placed on a perpetrator increased with the increase of anger in participants [ 37 ]. Anger is also known to increase bias against outgroup members [ 38 ] and decrease trust in others [ 39 ]. Taken together, these results imply that anger influences cognitive processes and especially social decision-making significantly, usually in a direction that implies less willingness to take the other’s perspective.

To further study the relationship of state anger and social cognition, we conducted a series of three studies. All studies are based on a between group study design where we expected an increased state anger in our experimental group after the different anger induction procedures. We hypothesized that being in an angry state reduces empathy and interferes with ToM.

In Study 1, we used an autobiographical recall paradigm to induce anger in one group. We then employed an empathic accuracy paradigm [ 40 – 42 ], measuring the ability to accurately rate other´s affect based on an emotional narration and thus requiring both empathy and ToM. We hypothesized a reduction of empathic accuracy in the anger group. In Study 2 and 3 we used two real-life social interaction paradigms before conducting the EmpaToM paradigm [ 5 ], a paradigm assessing empathy and ToM with separate tasks. We predicted that both the sharing of others’ affect as well as compassion and ToM ability in angry participants is reduced. Additionally, we predicted an increase in confidence in anger group participants, as anger is known to increase certainty appraisals. In Study 2, we induced anger through the personal degradation by a supposed second participant (confederate) in the form of negative feedback. This paradigm has been used before and showed satisfying anger induction results [ 43 , 44 ]. For Study 3, we developed a new anger induction paradigm. Our aim was to elicit anger without the personal devaluation of the participant to avoid inducing additional negative feelings such as shame or embarrassment. We therefore induced anger through the frustration of the participant by a confederate experimenter.

As the magnitude of effects of the anger induction on social cognition was unknown, we based the sample size in all three studies on other mood induction paradigms in the literature, opting for a sample of N = 40 to 50 [ 45 – 47 ]. We report the methods and results of all three studies as well as an additional analysis of the pooled data of Studies 2 and 3.

Study 1: Autobiographical recall anger induction and its effect on empathy using an empathic accuracy task

Study 1: materials and methods, participants.

In Study 1 , forty-six students of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem participated. One participant was excluded from further analysis due to a technical problem during the task. Analysis was conducted on the data of N = 45 participants ( n = 25 women, M age = 25.6, SD age = 3.1, 21- to 34-years-old). Participants were randomly assigned to the control group ( n = 23) or the experimental group ( n = 22). Sample characteristics are summarized in Table 1 . Participants gave written consent and were compensated with either course credit or 40NIS. Ethical approval was given by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (NR ethics approval letter 12_17).

Note : Age is given in mean years with standard deviation in brackets; m = male, f = female¸ CG = control group, EG = experimental group.

Anger induction paradigm

We used an anger induction paradigm based on autobiographical recall to induce anger in the experimental group [ 18 , 45 , 48 ]. Participants were asked by the experimenter to recall a real-life situation in which they experienced anger, and to describe it in writing in detail, as vividly as possible, for five minutes, while sitting comfortably alone in the experiment room. Control group participants were asked to write about their daily routine for the same duration of time.

We measured anger with a momentary emotion questionnaire. The momentary emotion questionnaire contained 14 items in which participants rated on a 10 cm visual analog scale with the extremes “not at all” and “very much”. We focused on three items, asking them to rate their current state (e.g. anger, relaxation and shame).

Empathy measure

Participants underwent an empathic accuracy task [ 41 , 42 ]. During the task, a fixation cross appeared (120 ms), followed by a short video clip (2–3 min) depicting a person telling a personal story (“target”). During the presentation of each video, participants were asked to continuously rate how positive or negative they believe the target felt when they told the story. Since we have previously collected these rating from the targets themselves, we could compute a correlation between targets’ and perceivers’ ratings, which produces a measure of empathic accuracy (EA). Participants were presented with four different videos, in counterbalanced and alternated order of either positive or negative content.

After signing the consent form, participants were asked to fill out a sociodemographic questionnaire, followed by a momentary emotion questionnaire (T1). Then the anger induction paradigm was implemented, followed by the second emotion questionnaire (T2). After T2, participants performed the EA paradigm, and then repeated the emotion questionnaire for the third time (T3). A debriefing followed after the experiment. At home, participants filled out several personality questionnaires, which are not further considered in the current paper. These included the Hebrew version of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index [IRI, 49 ], and the TAS-20 alexithymia scale [ 50 ].

Statistical analysis

We analyzed the success of the anger induction as well as the performance in the empathic accuracy task. All analyses were conducted with IBM SPSS statistics 27.0.1.0 [ 51 ].

Anger Induction . To examine the success of the anger induction paradigm, we used change scores for the anger, relaxation and shame values of the emotion questionnaire as our outcome measures. As all three change variables were not normally distributed, we proceeded to compare group differences using Mann-Whitney-U tests for AngerChange , RelaxationChange and ShameChange .

Empathic Accuracy . To examine the effects of anger on empathic accuracy, we analyzed the results of the EA scores using a repeated measures ANOVA with a between-subject factor of group (experimental vs. control), and a within -subject factor of video valence. To exclude the possibility of a short-decaying effect for anger, we further ran the same analysis for the EA scores on the first two videos only (considering the first positive and first negative videos for each subject).

Study 1: Results

Success of the anger induction manipulation.

On average, participants in the experimental group reported a larger increase in their Anger scores compared to those in the control group ( U = 49.00, z = -4.68, p < .001, r = -.70, 95% CI [-.82, -.52]; Fig 1A ). In addition, experimental group participants exhibited a significantly larger decline in Relaxation compared to control group participants ( U = 106.00, z = -3.34, p = .001, r = -.50, 95% CI [-.66, -.21]). No group differences were observed in Shame ratings ( U = 175.00, z = -1.76, p = .078, r = .26, 95% CI [-.03, .50]).

A: Change in emotion ratings from pre to post anger induction in both groups (CG: control group, green bars; EG: experimental group, red bars). B: Averaged EA scores as a function of group (control–green; experimental–red) and valence of video. Scores are based on all trials.

Results of empathic accuracy task

We observed a significant main effect of valence on EA scores ( F (1,43) = 49.81, p < .001, η p 2 = .54, 95% CI [.32, .67]), showing higher empathic accuracy for negative videos. However, there was no main effect of group on EA scores ( F (1,41) = .002, p = .964, η p 2 = .00, 95% CI [.00, .02]), and no interaction of valence X group ( F (1,43) = .022, p = .882, η p 2 = .00, 95% CI [.00, .07]) ( Fig 1B ). Similar results were found when taking into account the first two videos only, with no main effect of anger induction on EA scores ( F (1,43) = .85, p = .361, η p 2 = .02, 95% CI [.00, .16]), and no significant interaction ( F (1,43) = 1.65, p = .205, η p 2 = .04, 95% CI [.00, .19]).

Study 1: Summary

In this study, we were able to induce anger in our experimental group as predicted and succeeded in distinctly angering participants without increasing similar negative emotions like shame. However, we did not observe the hypothesized reduction of empathic accuracy in anger group participants. This might be because the anger experienced by the participants was not strong enough to influence their empathic abilities in the task.

Study 2: Negative feedback paradigm anger induction and its effect on empathy and ToM using the EmpaTom task

Study 2: materials and methods.

Fifty-four students of the University of Lübeck were recruited using the university’s mailing list. As we used deception in this study, psychology students of higher semesters were not invited. Two participants were excluded from further analysis due to their familiarity with the EmpaToM paradigm and three participants expressed doubt about the cover story and were subsequently excluded. Data analysis was performed on N = 49 participants ( n = 38 women, M age = 21.4, SD age = 2.5, 18- to 27-years-old). Participants were randomly assigned to the control group ( n = 22) or the experimental group ( n = 27). Sample characteristics are summarized in Table 1 . Participants gave written consent and were compensated with either course credit or 8 €/h. Ethical approval was given by the University of Lübeck (AZ18-257).

An anger induction paradigm based on negative feedback was implemented [ 43 , 44 ]. Participants were asked to pick one of three topics for an essay. They then wrote a short essay (maximum two pages) using information on the topic provided by the experimenter. Afterwards, participants were given an essay of a supposed second participant and were asked to rate this essay. Finally, participants received written feedback on their own essay by the supposed second participant. This feedback was manipulated: control group participants received neutral to positive feedback, while participants of the experimental group received negative feedback. The feedback consisted of the rating of the essay on five dimensions (10-step rating): unintelligent—intelligent, thought-provoking–boring, not logical–logical, irrational–rational, remarkable–mediocre. Additionally, there was some space for open commentary, in which both negative and neutral feedback included an evaluation of the introduction and the strength of arguments, for example “The introduction is confusing and doesn´t fit in with the rest of the text.” (negative) versus “The introduction is logical and fits in with the rest of the essay.” (neutral).

To measure the success of the anger induction paradigm, subjects had to fill out an emotion questionnaire. It was an ad-hoc created list of items, including the six state anger items of the German translation [ 52 ] of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI) by Spielberger [ 14 ] and additional self-formulated items. The complete questionnaire consisted of 16 items forming four subscales. The subscale Anger included six items (e.g., I am angry.), Relaxation included five items (e.g., I am calm.) and two items measured Shame (e.g., I am ashamed.). Furthermore, there were three distractor items (I feel sad.; I am tired.; I feel hungry). A full list of items can be found in the ( S1 File ). All items were rated on a 4-factor Likert scale from 1 = “not at all” to 4 = “very much”. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to assess the internal consistency of all subscales for both measurement times. The internal consistency of the Anger subscales at each time point was found to be satisfying, with Cronbach’s alpha for Anger 1 α = .79 and Anger 2 α = .82. Internal consistencies of the Relaxation subscales were not satisfying, with Relaxation 1 α = .60 and Relaxation 2 α = .68 and the inter-item correlations of item 11(I am dreamy.) were very low ( r = -.25 to r = .40). This item was therefore excluded from the following analysis, resulting in α = .70 and α = .68 for this subscale. The two Shame items did not correlate (α = .19 and .30), we therefore used only the item asking explicitly for feeling ashamed in the following analyses.

Empathy and theory of mind measure

We implemented the EmpaToM, a paradigm developed by Kanske and colleagues [ 5 ]. The EmpaToM measures four main outcomes: empathy, compassion, ToM ability and confidence. Empathy is defined as feeling with the target person, i.e., sharing the others affect. Participants rate their own affect after watching a video of another person telling a personal story. If the rated affect matches the valence of the observed video, we interpret this as empathy. Compassion is defined as feeling positive emotions of kindness and care for the target person. Participants rate their own compassion after each video. ToM ability is defined as inferring the target’s mental state and operationalized as accuracy in answering ToM questions about the videos. Lastly, participants rate their own confidence in their answer. Additional to these variables, the EmpaToM allows us to study the distracting effects of emotion on cognitive functioning by directly comparing performance after emotional vs. neutral videos (see e.g. [ 53 ]). Kanske and colleagues [ 5 ] found that participants made less errors when answering ToM questions compared to nonToM questions, as well as making less errors after emotional videos than after neutral ones.

The detailed sequence of one trial was as follows: Participants were presented with a fixation cross (1–3 s) followed by a short video clip (~ 15 s) depicting an actor telling a personal story of an event in their live. This story was either emotionally negative (e.g., events that caused deep sadness, fear, or guilt, such as a death or illness, an accident or a betrayal) or neutral (e.g., events that did not carry any significant emotions, such as a meeting with friends, decluttering the garage, an anecdote from childhood or describing a hobby). These videos gave rise to either a ToM question (e.g. Anna thinks that…a) her brother fell in love with her best friend, and this is why he watches cartoon movies with her. b) her brother´s being in love entirely changes his taste in movies. c) her brother plans to also watch action movies with her best friend.) or a nonToM, fact-based question (e.g. It is correct that…a) Anna´s boyfriend was at the party. b) Anna has been to France before and has brought some red wine. c) Anna has been living with friends for quite a while.). This resulted in four categories of videos. The videos depicted 12 different actors, each recounting one story for each category, resulting in 48 videos in total. After each video, participants were asked to rate their own affect (negative to positive) and how much compassion they feel for the person in the video (none to very much) on a visual analog scale. Each question was presented for 4 seconds. After another fixation cross (1–3 s), participants were asked to answer either a ToM question or a nonToM question. They were presented with the three multiple choice response options and had a maximum of 14 seconds to select the answer. After another fixation cross (0–2 s), participants were asked to rate their confidence in the answer they just gave (uncertain to certain, 4 s). Then the next trial would follow. Overall, the paradigm took around 20 minutes.

After written informed consent, participants were asked to fill out a sociodemographic questionnaire. To measure the success of the anger induction paradigm, participants had to fill out the emotion questionnaire right before (T1) and after the anger induction (T2). Once participants finished the second emotion questionnaire, we administered the EmpaToM. In the end, participants filled out several personality questionnaires, which are not further considered in the current paper. These included the trait anger scale of the STAXI [ 52 ], the German revised version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale [ 54 ] and the German translation of the Self-Description Questionnaire III [ 55 ]. A debriefing followed the administration of the questionnaires, where participants were asked what they believed the study to be about. Through additional follow up questions, it was determined, whether the participant fell for the deception.

Statistical analyses

We analyzed the success of the anger induction as well as the performance in the EmpaToM paradigm. All analyses were conducted in R version 3.6.3 [ 56 ].

Anger induction . To examine the success of the anger induction paradigm, we used change scores for the anger, relaxation, and shame values of the emotion questionnaire as our outcome measures. As all three change variables were not normally distributed, we compared group differences using Mann-Whitney-U tests for AngerChange , RelaxationChange and ShameChange .

EmpaToM . For the EmpaToM, mean scores were calculated for the affect rating (scale from -3 to 3), compassion rating (scale from 0 to 6) and confidence rating (scale from 1 to 6). As missing values were extremely rare in these variables, means were calculated ignoring missing values. For the accuracy variable, both an incorrect answer and no answer was coded as a wrong answer and accuracy was calculated as the quota of correct answers for each condition (scale from 0 to 1).

Group differences in the four outcome variables were analyzed by means of a mixed design ANOVA with the within-subject factors emotionality of video (emotionally negative versus neutral) and ToM requirement of the question (ToM versus nonToM). Where appropriate, we report both partial eta squared and generalized eta squared to allow for the comparison of our effects to studies with the same experimental design as well as studies with other experimental designs [ 57 ]. Interaction effects in the ANOVA were followed by post hoc analyses, allowing us to better asses our hypotheses. We report simple main effects with Bonferroni correction for the effect of group on affect and compassion ratings of emotionally negative videos, as well as the effect of group on accuracy in ToM questions. Additionally, we report the simple main effects of emotionality and ToM requirement on accuracy in both groups, in order to compare the performance of our groups to that of previous studies using the EmpaToM (see [ 5 ]). We repeated this analysis adding time as a factor, to investigate if the effect of the anger induction changes and possibly subsides over time. However, as we did not find any evidence that performance changed in a systematic way over the course of the experiment, we report these results in the ( S4 File ).

Study 2: Results

Ratings of anger increased significantly more in the experimental group than the control group ( U = 467.50, z = 3.67, p < .001, r = .52, 95% CI [.28, .70]; Fig 2A ). Participants of the experimental group reported increased shame relative to the control group ( U = 389.50, z = 2.42, p = .016, r = .35, 95% CI [.08, .57]). Relaxation on the other hand did not show a significant group effect ( U = 239.50, z = -1.17, p = .240. r = -.17, 95% CI [-.43, .12]).

A: Change in emotion ratings from pre to post anger induction in both groups. B: Effect of group and emotionality of video on affect ratings in the EmpaToM. C: Effect of group and emotionality of video on accuracy in the EmpaToM. D: Effect of group and ToM requirement of question on accuracy in the EmpaToM. E: Group effect on confidence in EmpaToM.

Results of EmpaToM Task

A 2 (group: angry vs. neutral) x 2 (emotionality of video: negative vs. neutral) x 2 (ToM requirement: ToM vs. nonToM) mixed design ANOVA was run on all four outcome variables of the EmpaToM: affect rating , compassion rating , accuracy and confidence rating . Here, we will only report relevant results concerning the effects of the anger induction on the affect and compassion ratings as well as the accuracy in answering the questions and the confidence in those answers. However, we were able to replicate the main task findings of Kanske and colleagues [ 5 ] and all results can be found in the ( S4 File ).

Detailed results can be found in Table 2 . Anger group participants did not differ in their affect compared to control group participants ( Fig 2B ). Similarly, an analysis of the simple main effect of group after emotional videos revealed no effect. A similar picture emerged for the compassion rating . Participants in the anger group did not differ in their compassion. Additionally, when considering only emotional videos, there was no difference in compassion ratings between both groups.

Note . df Num indicates degrees of freedom numerator. df Den indicates degrees of freedom denominator. η 2 p indicates partial eta-squared. η 2 g indicates generalized eta-squared.

Anger group participants were not generally less accurate in answering the questions; however, there was a significant interaction effect of emotionality and group ( Fig 2C ). The accuracy values suggested that anger group participants were more accurate in answering questions after neutral videos than after emotionally negative videos, whereas controls showed the inverse effect, but none of these simple effects reached significance. The interaction of ToM requirement and group did not yield significance ( Fig 2D ), but anger group participants were more accurate after ToM questions than after factual questions, while control participants’ accuracy was not influenced by the type of question. Considering only ToM questions, anger group participants were more accurate than controls, but this was not significant.

Finally, anger group participants did not differ in their confidence ratings ( Fig 2E ), nor did any interaction effects with group reach significance.

Study 2: Summary

The results show that the anger induction was successful in the experimental group, while no increase of anger was observed in the control group. Shame increased in the experimental group as well, indicating that the paradigm was not able to induce discrete anger. There was no effect on levels of relaxation between the groups.

In the EmpaToM, we found the expected and previously shown task effects, speaking for the effectiveness of the paradigm to measure empathy, compassion and ToM. Regarding the influence of anger, we did not find an effect of anger on the sharing of affect or compassion in general nor after emotional videos, indicating that both forms of empathic responses in our groups were not altered by their emotional state. Furthermore, we did not observe a general decline in ToM performance in anger group participants. On the contrary, the accuracy of participants in the anger group was dependent on the type of question. They were more accurate in answering ToM questions rather than factual ones, while the type of question did not influence control participants. Furthermore, anger group participants performed worse after emotionally negative videos, while control participants struggled more with the questions following neutral videos. Previous studies with the EmpaToM found similar effects as in our control group, suggesting that answering questions is easier after emotional videos [ 5 ]. Therefore, our results indicate that being in an angry state alters the usual preference for emotional videos.

Study 3: Frustration paradigm anger induction and its effect on empathy and ToM using the EmpaToM task

Study 3: materials and methods.

Fifty-seven students of the University of Lübeck participated in the study. As we used deception in this study, psychology students of higher semesters were not invited. Eleven participants were excluded from further analysis due to them not believing the paradigm (6), being too enraged to continue the experiment (1), having severe problems with vision (1), quitting the experiment early (1) or showing heightened anger levels before the anger induction (>2SD) (2). Analysis was conducted on the data of N = 46 participants ( n = 20 women, M age = 22.1, SD age = 3.4, 18- to 30-years-old). Participants were randomly assigned to the control group ( n = 21) or the experimental group ( n = 25). Participants gave written consent and were compensated with either course credit or 8 €/h. Ethical approval was given by the University of Lübeck.

We developed an anger induction paradigm based on frustration to induce anger in the experimental group. Participants were asked by a confederate experimenter to fill out a tedious registration form as part of the registration process of the institute. Once participants finished the registration form, the confederate would find a minor mistake, tear the sheet apart and order the participant to fill out the form again. This process was repeated another time. In total, experimental group participants had to fill out the form three times. Control group participants simply filled the form out once. It is important to note that this type of anger induction did not allow for the experimenter to be blinded to the groups.

To measure anger, participants filled out the same emotion questionnaire as in Study 2. The only changes were a slightly altered scale. All items were rated on a 10 cm visual analog scale with the extremes “not at all” and “very much”. We chose the visual analog scale to increase sensitivity for subtle intraindividual fluctuations in subject´s emotional state after the anger induction. The results of the internal consistency were similar to Study 2. We therefore excluded the same items from the Relaxation and the Shame subscale respectively.

We implemented the EmpaToM, the same paradigm as in Study 2 (see Study 2 Methods).

The procedure was similar to Study 2. Participants filled out a sociodemographic questionnaire, followed by the emotion questionnaire. Then the anger induction paradigm was implemented, followed by the second emotion questionnaire. Then, participants performed in the EmpaToM paradigm.

We analyzed the success of the anger induction as well as the performance in the EmpaToM paradigm in the exact same manner as we did in Study 2. All analyses were conducted in R version 3.6.3 [ 56 ].

Study 3: Results

Participants of the experimental group reported a higher increase of Anger than those in the control group ( U = 501.00, z = 5.26, p < .001, r = .77, 95% CI [.62, .87]; Fig 3A ). Simultaneously, experimental group participants exhibited a significantly higher decline in Relaxation than control group participants did ( U = 109.50, z = -3.38, p = .001, r = -.50, 95% CI [-.69, -.25]). No group difference was observed in Shame ratings compared to the control group ( U = 284.00, z = 0.48, p = .63, r = .07, 95% CI [-.23, .35]).

A: Change in emotion ratings from pre to post anger induction in both groups B: Effect of group and emotionality of video on affect ratings in the EmpaToM. C: Effect of group and emotionality of video on accuracy in the EmpaToM. D: Effect of group and ToM requirement of question on accuracy in the EmpaToM. E: Group effect on confidence in EmpaToM.

A 2 (group: angry vs. neutral) x 2 (emotionality of video: negative vs. neutral) x 2 (ToM requirement: ToM vs. nonToM) mixed design ANOVA was run on all four outcome variables of the EmpaToM: affect rating , compassion rating , accuracy and confidence rating . Here, we will only report relevant results. As in Study 2, we were able to replicate the main task findings of Kanske and colleagues [ 5 ] and all results can be found in the ( S6 File ).

Detailed results can be found in Table 3 . There was no main effect of anger induction on affect , nor a significant interaction between group and emotionality ( Fig 3B ). Additionally, we did not find a group difference in affect ratings when considering only emotional videos. Similarly, there was no main effect of group on compassion , nor did the interaction with emotionality reach significance. Both groups reported similar compassion after emotional videos, replicating the results of Study 2.

Looking at accuracy , anger group participants were slightly less accurate than controls, but this main effect of group was not significant. Contrary to Study 2, we did not find a significant interaction of emotionality and group ( Fig 3C ). An analysis of simple main effects showed that anger group participants were nominally more accurate in responding to questions after neutral videos than after emotionally negative videos, whereas controls showed no such effect. We also did not find an interaction of ToM requirement and group ( Fig 3D ). Unlike in Study 2, anger group participants were not influenced by the type of questions, while control participants were more accurate after ToM questions. The simple main effect of group when only looking at ToM questions showed that anger group participants were slightly less accurate than controls in answering ToM questions.

Similar to Study 2, anger group participants did not differ in their confidence ratings ( Fig 3E ), nor did any interaction effects with group reach significance.

Study 3: Summary

Analysis of the data showed that the anger induction was successful in the experimental group, while no increase of anger was observed in the control group. Shame did not increase in the experimental group, indicating that our developed paradigm is able to induce discrete anger.

Similar to the previous study, we did not find an effect of anger on the sharing of affect or compassion in general nor after emotional videos, indicating that empathy in our groups was not altered by their emotional state. Furthermore, we did not observe a general decline in accuracy in our anger group participants. However, when only looking at ToM questions, participants of the anger group performed slightly worse than the control group, indicating that anger did impair their perspective taking. Contrary to the previous study, we did not find that emotionality of the videos influenced our groups in different ways. However, we observed the same trend as previously, suggesting that anger group participants are better at answering questions after neutral videos.

Analysis of pooled data: Study 2 and Study 3

As the anger induction effects were comparable between Study 2 and 3 and to increase the power for our analyses, we also analyzed the pooled data of both studies. We therefore did the same mixed ANOVA on the EmpaToM data as in the previous studies but included type of anger induction as a between group variable. Simulation based power analysis was done using the R function Superpower [ 58 ]. Effect sizes were estimated based on a previous study comparing men with a history of legally relevant aggressive behavior with controls [ 3 ], as we determined this set up to be the closest one to ours. We thus estimated medium effects for differences in empathy measures and small effects for differences in ToM measures. The power analysis yielded sufficient power (above 80%) for detecting medium effects in the hypothesized interaction of emotionality and group on our empathy measures ( affect and compassion ), and sufficient power for detecting large effects in the interaction of ToM requirement and group on our ToM measure ( accuracy ).

A 2 (group: angry vs. neutral) x 2 (type of anger induction: negative feedback vs. frustration) x 2 (emotionality of video: negative vs. neutral) x 2 (ToM requirement: ToM vs. nonToM) mixed design ANOVA was run on all four outcome variables of the EmpaToM: affect rating , compassion rating , accuracy and confidence rating . No relevant effect was influenced by the type of anger induction; thus, we will only report the effects regarding our hypotheses. Full results can be found in the ( S7 File ).

Detailed results are in Table 4 . There was no main effect of anger induction on affect , nor a significant interaction between group and emotionality. Additionally, we did not find a group difference in affect ratings when considering only emotional videos. Similarly, there was no main effect of group on compassion , nor did the interaction with emotionality reach significance. Both groups reported similar compassion after emotional videos.

Looking at accuracy , anger group participants were slightly less accurate than controls but this main effect of group was not significant. We did find a marginally significant interaction of emotionality and group. The anger group participants were slightly, but not significantly more accurate after neutral videos than after emotionally negative videos, while the control´s accuracy was not influenced by emotionality. We did not find an interaction of ToM requirement and group. However, anger group participants were influenced by the type of question, while control participants were not. Looking only at ToM questions, anger group participants were not less accurate than controls.

Anger group participants did not differ in their confidence ratings, nor did any interaction effects with group reach significance.

Pooled data: Summary

Pooling the data of studies 2 and 3, we did not find an effect of anger on shared affect or compassion in general nor after emotional videos, indicating that empathy in our anger group participants was not altered by their emotional state. Furthermore, we did not observe a general decline in accuracy in our anger group participants, nor did they perform significantly worse in ToM questions. However, the accuracy of participants in the anger group was dependent on the type of question. They were more accurate in answering ToM questions rather than factual ones, while the type of question did not influence our control participants. Furthermore, anger group participants performed slightly worse after emotionally negative videos. However, the interaction with the factor group was not significant for both emotionality and ToM requirement.

With the present study, we aimed to investigate the influence of state anger on behavioral measures of empathy and ToM. To capture different levels of anger states we implemented already established anger induction paradigms and developed a novel interactive anger induction paradigm. After successful anger induction, we examined its impact on subsequent measures of empathy and ToM. Contrary to our hypotheses, an increase in state anger did not affect empathic accuracy, sharing of affect, compassion, ToM performance or confidence ratings. In the following, we will first discuss the anger induction paradigms and then discuss the lack of effects of the anger induction on empathy and theory of mind.

Anger induction paradigms

All anger induction paradigms, autobiographical recall, negative feedback and frustration successfully induced anger. When comparing effect sizes, the autobiographical recall and frustration paradigms outperformed the negative feedback paradigm with large effect sizes for the group differences in anger and relaxation ratings. A recent meta-analysis found a similar average of effect sizes in anger induction studies and also underlined that an increase of negative affect is usually accompanied by a decrease of positive effect with a similar magnitude [ 59 ]. However, as participants in the autobiographical recall paradigm are explicitly instructed to recall angering events and are thus not as blind to the induction, the good results might partially be due to demand characteristics [ 59 ].

Furthermore, the negative feedback paradigm also led to heightened feelings of shame, which was not the case for the other two paradigms. Focusing on the interactive paradigms, the more specific effect on anger in the frustration paradigm can be explained with the paradigm not degrading the self-worth of the participant. Additionally, the anger effect might have been stronger, because participants were face to face with the anger-inducing person, rather than receiving written feedback. This is in line with previous research, showing that personal interaction leads to stronger anger induction than written feedback, possibly making it harder for the participant to disengage from the encounter [ 23 ]. A downside of the new induction method is its lower believability. More people expressed doubt over its cover story than it was the case for the negative feedback paradigm. Suspicion in deception experiments has been shown to alter participants’ behavior. This suspicion can be facilitated by prior experience with deceptive experiments [ 60 ]. To counteract this effect, we excluded psychology students in their second year or higher. However, as all participants were students with ample opportunity to participate in studies, we cannot rule out prior contact with studies featuring deception. This might have made it more difficult to induce strong anger in this group. Thus, the paradigm might be even more successful in a general population with less prior experience in psychological experiments.

Furthermore, we only used a self-report measurement for anger. These measures have limitations like a social desirability bias, demand effects, the ability of participants to correctly label and quantify their emotions and their sensitivity to faint fluctuations [ 23 , 61 ]. It might therefore be instructive to combine these measures with psychophysiological measures in future studies.

In summary, all paradigms were successful in eliciting anger in the target participants. Advantages of the new paradigm based on frustration are the ecological validity and no simultaneous increase of shame. It should be noted however that although all paradigms clearly induced anger on average, the effect was quite variable across participants with a considerable number of individuals not showing any change in negative affect at all. While this is advantageous for studies on interindividual variation, it reduces the power to detect effects of anger induction on the group level. It might be interesting to perform the reported analysis including only participants with a high increase of anger in future studies with bigger sample sizes.

Influence of anger on empathy and ToM

Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not find any general impairment by anger in empathic accuracy, empathy and ToM. These results seem to contradict previous studies that found a connection between empathy and anger. However, these studies looked at anger and empathy as personality traits [ 1 , 2 ]. In the current study, we examined the effect of state anger on state social cognition, which was found to be unrelated in our experiments.

There are different explanations as to why the anger induction did not impact performance in the EA and EmpaToM paradigms. First, this might be due to emotions elicited by these video-based paradigms themselves, which might have been more intense than the anger induction in the beginning. Indeed, the EA and EmpaToM paradigms are quite similar to typical video-based emotion induction paradigms. Second, the anger induction might have been too weak and transient. Although the effect was statistically strong, several participants did not show an anger induction effect or reported only weak changes in anger. Also, it might be that our behavioral measures of empathy and ToM were not sensitive enough to detect subtle changes in the participants’ response to others’ emotions. Furthermore, our studies with relatively small sample sizes only allowed for the detection of medium to large effect sizes. We improved the power by pooling the data from Studies 2 and 3 but might have still missed small effects. Additionally, the small sample size did not allow for controlling possible covariates such as gender or in/outgroup status between participants and the confederate or the observed people in the videos.

Our data thus questions whether anger status has a general effect on understanding other’s emotions and cognition. If there are effects of anger on empathy, the anger induction was not strong enough to elicit them. It might also be that the effects are more affect-specific such that anger status helps one to resonate with other’s anger but not with other’s fear or sadness. The heterogeneity of our video stimuli does not allow for such specific analyses, but future studies should test more specifically the effects on understanding other’s sadness or anger. Future studies might also explore underlying physiological and brain activation patterns of empathic experience and how these are modulated by state anger, similar to previous studies of the impact of affective states on empathy and ToM [ 25 , 62 ] as these measures might be more sensitive to detect anger effects.

Lastly, it may be that anger, being an emotion that is often expressed towards someone (person or group) may influence empathy towards that person or group only. Future experiments can test such a prediction. For example, if the ‘target’ figure in an empathic accuracy task is the confederate that just made you angry.

While we did not find a general effect of the anger induction on answering questions about the videos, anger group participants were better at answering questions after neutral videos compared to emotional videos. This differed from the behavior of the control participants, as well as from participants in previous studies using the EmpaToM [ 5 , 63 ]. Participants across these EmpaToM studies were better at answering questions about emotional videos, which fits with memory research showing that emotional content is better remembered than neutral content [ 64 ]. This is explained with both memory-encoding factors such as attention as well as memory consolidation. As participants are asked about the videos immediately after watching them, our finding of an altered emotionality effect on accuracy might indicate that state anger alters the attentional bias for emotional information. It is important to highlight that this interaction was only significant in Study 2 but exhibited the same trend in Study 3. Similarly, we were not able to find a general decline in performance when only looking at ToM questions. On the contrary, similar to previous studies with the EmpaToM [ 5 ] our participants consistently performed better in ToM questions than factual questions. In the pooled data, this effect was even more pronounced in our angry subgroup. Thus, we were not able to replicate the findings of Yip and Schweitzer [ 26 ], who found reduced perspective-taking in non-emotional tasks in their angry participants. However, as they point out, their effect was mediated by the arousal elicited by the anger induction. Thus, our anger induction might have induced less arousal as would be necessary to impair ToM.

Contrary to our hypothesis, anger group participants were only nominally more confident about their responses. At first glance, this seems to contradict previous research, arguing that anger compared to other negative emotions increases perceived control and certainty [ 32 ]. However, the studies finding these effects focused on either the evaluation of future events or the attribution of blame or causality in past events [ 65 ]. Our results indicate that the feeling of certainty when being moderately angry does not translate to a significant increase of confidence in one´s own judgment about other’s current mental states.

Conclusions

To summarize, we were able to validate a new interactive anger-induction paradigm based on the frustration of participants by goal blocking. We found no direct effect of anger on empathy in the empathic accuracy task, nor on ToM performance and empathy in the EmpaToM. However, there was a trend effect of anger on accuracy, indicating that anger group participants lose the natural preference for emotional content observed normally in the EmpaToM. Furthermore, anger group participants were consistently better at answering ToM questions compared to factual ones. While the results did not corroborate a direct effect of mild state anger on either empathy or theory-of-mind, it provides a starting point for further research into this topic. Future studies should assess, whether stronger anger (rage) or other emotions influence empathy and ToM directly or indirectly via attention and memory processes. Study designs should include physiological measures of anger and neural measures of empathy and ToM.

Supporting information

Funding statement.

UK received funding (KR3691/8-1) from the DFG (German Research Foundation; www.dfg.de ). RW is supported by the sdw (Stiftung der deutschen Wirtschaft, www.sdw.org ). We acknowledge financial support by Land Schleswig-Holstein within the funding programme Open Access Publikationsfonds.

Data Availability

What is anger? The definition and psychology behind this emotion

One can define anger as a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility. It can be important to note that anger can be a normal, universal human emotion. There may be many instances and events in life that can cause someone to become angry. Typically, anger arises when someone feels threatened, disturbed, or otherwise interrupted from a peaceful emotional state. Anger can also be combined with other emotions, such as jealousy, sadness, or hopelessness. Long-term or unmanaged anger can lead to negative effects on your life, but it may be possible to manage anger through methods like deep breathing, lifestyle changes, and therapy. If you’re experiencing challenges managing your anger, you may wish to try online therapy to get the help and support you deserve.

The psychology of anger

Just from reading  anger quotes , we can already tell that there can be many misconceptions and misinterpretations surrounding anger. One of the most common misconceptions may be that anger is a bad emotion. Anger may not always be a negative emotion; however, when someone isn't able to manage their anger in an appropriate way, harmful situations can arise. 

Of course, there can be some drawbacks associated with anger, particularly if this emotion is ongoing or recurring for long periods. Anger may lead to damaged relationships, lower quality of life, and even health issues, like high blood pressure . The negative impacts associated with repeated and ongoing anger can be reasons why learning to manage anger is often believed to be so important.

Anger patterns

Patterns typically exist in many areas of life, such as relationships, career choices, and others. Patterns can also be dominant themes in emotional states and feelings. When experiencing anger, it can be important to be cognizant of patterns and the roles they may play in your feelings. One of the most revealing things about patterns may be that they can provide insight into who you are, the choices you make, and whether certain changes may need to be made.

If you find that you are constantly feeling angry around certain people or in certain environments, then this could be a negative pattern that requires a change. People and environments that are good for you will usually not cause you to feel constant anger and unhappiness. Sometimes, we must make tough decisions that allow us to grow and evolve in the long term.

The pitfalls of ongoing anger

The definition and psychology of anger have generally been explored and well-documented. Even so, there may still be many people who may fail to realize the pitfalls associated with ongoing states of anger and discontentment. Anger can ruin opportunities, destroy families, and prevent people from having experiences that would be good for them and help them grow.

In general, ongoing anger is not a positive state of being. If you are constantly in a state of anger, you may find additional things to be angry about because of your default mindset. The way you feel on a regular basis can matter quite a bit, and it can set the tone for many things in your life. It can determine how you go about life, how others perceive you, the way you interact with people, and more. The ultimate pitfall of ongoing anger could be robbing yourself of an amazing quality of life that could be available to you if you were willing to work through the source of your angry feelings.

Managing anger

Anger may be an inevitable emotion that many humans feel from time to time, but this doesn't mean that we must be powerless to control it. By having a grasp on anger, we may ensure that this emotion doesn't fester and become strong enough to control us. 

One of the first steps in controlling anger can be acknowledging its existence. Many people find it challenging to admit they are angry; this can be problematic because it can be difficult for an issue to be resolved without first being acknowledged.

There can be a multitude of strategies to help manage anger. Once you've acknowledged feelings of anger, you may begin to assess them. Why are you angry? What's bothering you? Is your anger a result of feeling threatened or scared? In most scenarios, it may not be challenging to know why you are angry. When people experience feelings of anger, there is almost always a person, event, decision, or another trigger that sets the anger in motion.

There may be many other strategies that can be used to manage anger: deep breathing , removing yourself from the situation, and making lifestyle changes are just a few. Ultimately, these methods generally involve getting to the root of your anger, which can be easier said than done, but is often worth the effort.

Online therapy may help you manage your anger

While it may be possible to learn to manage your anger on your own, receiving guidance from a licensed mental health professional can be a valuable and helpful tool. You may wish to find a therapist in your local area that you can meet with in person, or you may decide to try online therapy as it may fit into your schedule more easily.

An increasing number of studies suggest that online therapy can help those experiencing complicated feelings related to anger. In this study, researchers looked at the effects of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) on those experiencing problematic anger. They found that participants showed significantly decreased feelings of anger after a brief treatment. This type of therapy (CBT) is generally as effective when administered online as it is in person.

• How anger and alcohol use can fuel each other Medically reviewed by Melissa Guarnaccia , LCSW
• Anger Management Hotlines: What You Need To Know To Get Help Medically reviewed by Paige Henry , LMSW, J.D.
• Relationships and Relations

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Your Health

• Treatments & Tests
• Health Inc.
• Public Health

Feeling ragey? Don't bury your anger, process it. Here's how

Hilary Jacobs Hendel

It's 9 a.m. and your to-do list is a mile long. Before you tackle it, your partner criticizes you, and your teen greets you with an eye roll. Meanwhile, you see a news clip about war or politics that pushes you over the edge.

If you often feel like you're boiling over, you're not alone. In fact, 23% of people surveyed in a Gallup Poll admitted feeling enraged a lot in 2022. This makes sense since there's plenty of stress to spark outrage.

While anger is common, many of us have a conflicted relationship with it. So often we're told that expressing our outrage makes us a "hothead" or means we have "issues." In other words, we're taught to feel bad about our anger. This is why it can be a revelation to learn that feeling angry isn't a character flaw — in fact, it has a biological purpose. Our emotions never hurt anyone. It's what we do with them that matters.

Here's a step-by-step process for working with feelings of anger that we — a psychotherapist and a psychologist — share with our patients. As research shows, understanding your anger and what it's trying to tell you can help you process it in healthy ways and use your anger constructively.

Understand your anger's purpose

If you ever lash out when you're angry — or numb the feelings with alcohol — you probably know that actions propelled by unchecked and unexamined anger can do harm. But the emotion itself is not our foe when it is channeled wisely. Anger is a biological program that's not only adaptive but necessary for survival. In fact, anger's job is to protect us.

Shots - Health News

If you're often angry or irritable, you may be depressed.

But there are two types of anger: core and defensive. Core anger is a response to a perceived violation. This is why threats of physical violence, character assaults, and feeling wronged can evoke it. Without it, we wouldn't be able to speak up when someone makes a racist remark or set a boundary when a co-worker is rude.

In contrast, defensive anger is a cover story. This type of anger serves to protect us from experiencing other emotions. For example, we've worked with patients who used anger to hide their shame, fear of dying, grief, or terror that a loved one would abandon them.

Learn to move through anger with the Change Triangle

Unlike being taught your ABCs, our society doesn't yet teach us about emotions (But they should!). As psychotherapists, we know that anyone can learn to experience anger in healing ways, and you don't even need to be in therapy to do so.

We want to introduce you to a practical tool for emotional health. It's called the Change Triangle and was originally developed by David Malan for psychotherapists, and adapted by me, Hilary for general use.

The idea is that we can get cut off from our core anger — or other strong emotions — and get stuck in less healthy responses. The Change Triangle guides you from your defenses to experience your core emotions so you can ultimately release the anger.

Next time something annoys you or you find yourself in a blind rage, look at the diagram below and try to identify which corner of the Change Triangle you identify your mental state:

The Change Triangle Maria Fabrizio hide caption

The Change Triangle

A) If we aren't able to tolerate the experience of anger and work with it, we will use protective defenses to avoid it. Sometimes we turn our anger toward ourselves and develop symptoms like drug and alcohol abuse, over- or under-eating, depression, and ruminating.

Alternatively, we may "act out" or externalize our anger by storming out of a room, canceling someone, or punching a wall. These actions are also defenses against the internal experience of anger.

B) Feeling inhibitory emotions like anxiety, guilt, or shame, which blocks anger. These emotions protect us and others from our anger. For example, maybe someone offends you at work, and it fills you with anxiety. Or you constantly feel guilty around your family who never treated you well. In both cases, core anger lies beneath awaiting validation.

C) Fully experiencing and owning your core anger. You know you are experiencing anger directly when you can name it, validate it, sense it in the body, know who it is directed toward, and start to recognize the impulse.

Once we are able to acknowledge our anger, we can work to release its charge so our nervous system returns to a calmer resting state. Naming and processing anger will reduce symptoms of depression and anxiety, which are often the result of blocked and buried emotions. And it allows you to work with your anger so it's expressed in constructive ways.

Goats and Soda

How inuit parents teach kids to control their anger, 4 steps to validate and release core anger.

When something makes your blood boil, try not to judge yourself. Instead, approach yourself with a stance of curiosity and compassion and try the following things:

Step 1: Honor your anger by naming it

Ignoring our emotions only makes them roar louder and come out sideways, but making space for anger can help us experience it so we feel calmer.

For example, our patients express anger in myriad ways. They may declare their rage or apologize for it. Sometimes, they express it nonverbally by breaking eye contact or furrowing their brow.

Therefore, if you're upset because there's so much strife in the world, or mad because you must spend another spring break with your in-laws, try naming your emotions by saying out loud or to yourself, "I am angry!" and see how it feels.

Research shows that giving language to our internal experience helps regulate the nervous system and can foster a sense of calm and balance.

Step 2: Sense it physically

One way to get in touch with this emotion is by becoming an "anger detective" and to identify where it shows up in your body. Perhaps your temperature rises, or there's tension in your core, or you feel an impulse to scream or kick.

Next time you're angry, try slowly scanning your body from head to toe. Notice any sensations that you're experiencing and try to slow down and befriend them. Encourage yourself to be curious, compassionate and to stay with the sensations and breathe.

Step 3: Notice anger's impulse

Once you have recognized and named your anger, you can work with it. For example, if anger makes your fists clench, ask yourself this question: "If my fists could speak, what would they say or do?"

Often, our patients answer this question by saying, "I'd like to hit the person who hurt me?" or "I'd like to smack them in the face!"

As jarring as this sounds, it's nothing to feel ashamed of, nor does it make you a terrible person. This impulse is a biological response. It's anger's way of trying to protect you, and it's not your fault or under conscious control.

Step 4: Release core anger with a "rage portrayal"

If you were a fly on the wall in one of our sessions, you would hear us say things like, "Let's honor what your anger wants you to do." Now, this isn't some woo-woo psychology hack found on the internet. The intervention is based in science , which confirms that you can use your imagination to help move through your emotions and heal.

Here's how to try it. We recommend starting with a situation that makes you moderately angry or annoyed.

Close your eyes and bring to mind the person or situation that's angering you. Next, notice the sensations of anger that arise in your body. Breathe deeply, staying with the sensations. After a while, the impulse of your anger will show itself. Often, it's a desire to "speak your truth" or physically retaliate. Staying connected to the physical sensation of the impulse, let the fantasy play out, like a movie, showing what it wants to do to the person who hurt or angered you. Continue until you feel the anger subside or you notice a shift in your emotional state.

Remember this is not a dress rehearsal for action — you're not really going to punch anyone! It's a way to help you release this energy so that it doesn't hurt you or others. Here's a place to learn more about this process.

Make good use of your anger

Once you recognize and experience your anger, you can think more clearly again to make good use of it.

Anger can help us set boundaries and assert our needs. For instance, if your family isn't pitching in enough at home, you can ask them directly for more help. And if someone is insulting your political views (or your cooking), you can firmly ask them to stop.

If you suspect you have unaddressed anger from your childhood that is negatively affecting your life today, it's a great idea to seek support. With a trained therapist, pent-up anger can be released in a safe way, helping you feel better.

When we no longer fear our anger (even when it feels uncomfortable), we're in a better place to work with it. Like physical exercise, it's an ongoing practice. Processing and honoring our emotions improves our relationships and helps us live healthier lives.

Juli Fraga is a psychologist and writer in San Francisco. Hilary Jacobs Hendel, LCSW is a certified psychoanalyst and AEDP psychotherapist and the author of It's Not Always Depression .

• types of anger
• anger management

Expressing anger effectively Essay

Anger involves a very potent process involving emotional feelings that always need to be expressed. Though many people may not know this, anger is essential in healthy balanced life in all human beings. However, the difference in effects of anger on the affected person as well as those close to the person depends greatly on how that person expresses it.

Expression of anger is not necessarily violence, but requires effective management and expression which is basically a process. Understanding anger is the initial and very critical point in its management as well as expression. This involves understanding and examining of the real cause of the anger. Identify the situation under which you got angry and try to look at the feelings that made you angry.

Understanding anger helps individuals to avoid any of the two scenarios that many people tend to use when they are angry; blaming anger and justifying anger. Blaming anger occurs when a person got angry and as a result he does something unpleasant. Later, the person uses anger as the cause of his actions. We have all heard “I am sorry I was angry”. This is a good example of blaming anger.

Justifying anger is some kind of showing proof that a person has the right to react in a specific manner. For instance, a person may get angry and try to do something unpleasant but if people try to stop him, the angry person will try to show the others that he has to react because he is angry. It is therefore very important to understand what made one angry to avoid later regrets over one’s actions (Thomas 1).

Expression of anger is very important and usual to all men. However, anger should be expressed in a healthy way that allows all involved parties to be in a situation that promotes their interests. Direct and straight forward discussion (should not be verbally aggressive) of the problem at hand is always the best way to handle anger rather than getting physically violent.

This helps a lot in getting the anger out and in a clear way rather than keeping it to oneself. Approaching the people involved with the anger is a great move since it helps one understand the cause of the anger and gives the involved parties the opportunity to address the issue in a proper way to avoid grudges.

Assertive approach in dealing with anger also enables the people involved to express their expectations from one another to prevent similar occurrences. For those who cannot remain non physical when angry, they should do so intelligently and safely. Kicking a pillow is a good example rather than beating up the other person or even oneself. Professionals have suggested that angry people can divert their attention to tasks that require physical energy.

This is based on the fact that angry people tend to be more energetic and they should therefore avoid physical attack to other people as much as possible. This helps prevent physical beatings and on the other hand it promotes productive activities such as sports (Gay 1).

Every person gets angry at some point but the way that we express and deal with it is what matters. Identification of the cause of anger is the root towards a managed expression of anger that is aimed at promoting our personal and other people’s needs and interests.

Works Cited

Gay, Bobbi. “ Processing Emotions Effectively ”. 2006. Web.

Thomas, Patrick. “Diffusing Anger”. 2002. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, December 21). Expressing anger effectively. https://ivypanda.com/essays/expressing-anger-effectively/

"Expressing anger effectively." IvyPanda , 21 Dec. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/expressing-anger-effectively/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Expressing anger effectively'. 21 December.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Expressing anger effectively." December 21, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/expressing-anger-effectively/.

1. IvyPanda . "Expressing anger effectively." December 21, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/expressing-anger-effectively/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Expressing anger effectively." December 21, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/expressing-anger-effectively/.

• The Phenomenon of Victim-Blaming
• Interpersonal Communication. Emotions and Perceptions
• Non-Aggressive Behavior, Emotions, and Ethics
• Anger Management: Group Therapy & Roleplay Session
• Towards Morally Justifying Political Violence
• Effective Responses to Challenging Parental Behaviors
• Anger Management Educational Model - Psychology
• Ancient Philosophy. Aristotle and Seneca on Anger
• Justifying the Bill of Rights: the US Constitution
• "Negative Emotions" by Lydia Davis
• What does it mean to be mentally/emotionally healthy?
• The Ritalin Fact Book: Stimulants Use in the ADHD Treatment
• The Character of Elizabeth Gilbert in "Eat Pray Love" by Ryan Murphy
• Do Violent Video Games Lead to Aggressive Behavior?
• The True Meaning of Beauty

Psychology: Dealing with Angry People

Checked : Robyn H. , Heather M.

Latest Update 26 Jan, 2024

Table of content

Why do people get angry?

Know who you are, seek to know the other person, always be ready, wait until they are calm, before discussing.

You are sitting in a management meeting your boss asks you a question. You give an answer that he does not like. And that wakes the demons in him. He does not just talk to you sternly; he yells, curses, and reduces you to nothing. You look like an insignificant figure in-front of the entire management team as well as your client.

This is one of the situations many people face every day. It is even worse for women, who are mostly faith-hearted and cannot handle such humiliation. Such angry-reactions are pretty out-of-proportion. The worst thing is not also the abuses, but the reaction of everyone else. Many will sit quietly as this emotional volcano erupts in your face. Other employees will not dare intervene for fear of losing their jobs, perhaps.

Apart from the office situation, you may have a blood relative who makes your blood freeze. They are known for picking wars with everyone they meet. Where during family gatherings, or just in a social visit, they are no way of controlling their anger.

Some people are engulfed in anger as if it is their shield and armor. They use passion as a weapon to defend their harmful actions and attack others. We have often dealt with such emotional outbursts in life. In many cases, you will only hear advice from different entities, including yourself, for the angry lad to seek psychiatric help. We tell them they have anger management issues that will drown them if they are not careful.

But that is just on their level. Not many times have we taught ourselves how to handle people with emotional instability. We don’t want to be in their shoes, but we feel the effects they have on us. We must know how to keep at peace with such situations when they arise.

The first step is to understand why people have anger issues. There are varieties of reasons; including narcissism, competitiveness, low-frustration tolerance as well as low self-esteem. Apart from these, the emotional and physical condition of an individual prior can lead to such outbursts. For instance, you will find a person who is already tired, depressed, or anxious; it is very easy to trigger an anger episode.

Sometimes it is not even their fault that they are always angry. They inherit such emotions from parents. Those children raised in a hostile household will grow up knowing only anger as the solution to everything. The environment parents set for their children determine their future behaviors. According to Lynne Namka, a psychiatrist from Arizona, the energy of self-indulgent is contagious and can spread like a harmful virus. One member of a family can infect others with anger, which affects each person differently. Namka says some will cover in silence with hate towards others, while others demonstrate with angry outbursts.

Although anger is not good, it is not always an adverse reaction. For instance, sometimes, people have legitimate reasons for feeling upset. The only problem is, the one on the receiving end never has it easy. It will still create tension and suffering for everyone who crosses its path, no matter the cause.

If you are the one with anger issues, we would ask you to seek medical attention or find a hobby. Things are a bit different if you are the one facing the abuses. The following ways can help you deal with coping with animalist and childish characters in your life.

Carl Jung says, “Knowing your darkness can help you deal with others.” So, do you know who you are? How do you respond to angry people in your life? If you are that kind who barks back, or bows down immediately, understanding yourself can help you better understand the other person. Perhaps you are that angry type too, who yells at others. Master your own emotions, and it will be easy carrying other’s weight.

The reason why we get poorly affected is that we don’t try to understand the frustration of the other person and their background. Perhaps you already know how angry your life is, and you know what causes it; when you feel like burst out in response, take a deep breath and remind yourself it is not their fault. Anger issues are mostly because of discontentment, resentment, wounds, and misunderstandings. They may know how annoying their behavior is.

When the heat erupts, you will be compelled to react. There may not be enough time even to think and plan your approach; you are expected to think first. You may, therefore, try different methods to keep things under control. Some of your tactics will backfire and ignite the glowing splints into an unquenchable fire.

The worst thing you can do, for instance, is reciprocating with the same venom. This will only exacerbate the other person's anger to levels that may strip you of your dignity. Sometimes anger blinds and blocks all channels of self-control in the system; as such, one can even end up hurting themselves. Do not, therefore, respond to anger with anger.

We Will Promptly Compose an Essay for You

Do not confront them about their behavior in the heat of the moment. Don’t even yell to them to “calm down” or “relax. Hugging or pitying evokes patronizing characters.

Do not be afraid of anger. Angry people can sniff your fear and take advantage of you. That is when things may turn into physical violence. Well, in that case, you may need to stay far from the individual. But don’t let angry words, raised voice, and loud demands challenge.

If you know there are people in your line who may erupt into angry monsters anytime, prepare in advance to protect yourself. According to a recent study from Stanford University, the more prepared we are to face angry people; the less likely we are to get infuriated. Look at the anger from their perspective and acknowledge their frustrations. Perhaps someone has just been fired, be ready to respond with positive statements always, like “I hear you.”

Making a discussion with an angry person when they are high is impossible. Wait until they are relaxed, and then initiate a healthy conversation. If it is a fierce boss, for instance, let them know how their behavior affects your performance. In the case of an angry and uncontrollably irrational boss, a calm and professional response is always the scoring card.

Sometimes an effort to resolve a dispute with angry people may fail. In such situations, wash your hands and remain kind. Otherwise, you can have a positive impact on someone by understanding them.

Looking for an Experienced Essay Writer?

• American Public University Bachelor of Arts (BA)

No reviews yet, be the first to write your comment

Write your review

Thanks for review.

It will be published after moderation

Latest News

Humanistic Perspectives on the Arts

26 Jan, 2024

Bayesian Games

New historicism

April 2, 2024

Eclipse Psychology: When the Sun and Moon Align, So Do We

How a total solar eclipse creates connection, unity and caring among the people watching

By Katie Weeman

Students observing a partial solar eclipse on June 21, 2020, in Lhokseumawe, Aceh Province, Indonesia.

NurPhoto/Getty Images

It was 11:45 A.M. on August 21, 2017. I was in a grassy field in Glendo, Wyo., where I was surrounded by strangers turned friends, more than I could count—and far more people than had ever flocked to this town, population 210 or so. Golden sunlight blanketed thousands of cars parked in haphazard rows all over the rolling hills. The shadows were quickly growing longer, the air was still, and all of our faces pointed to the sky. As the moon progressively covered the sun, the light melted away, the sky blackened, and the temperature dropped. At the moment of totality, when the moon completely covered the sun , some people around me suddenly gasped. Some cheered; some cried; others laughed in disbelief.

Exactly 53 minutes later, in a downtown park in Greenville, S.C., the person who edited this story and the many individuals around him reacted in exactly the same ways.

When a total solar eclipse descends—as one will across Mexico, the U.S. and Canada on April 8—everyone and everything in the path of totality are engulfed by deep shadow. Unlike the New Year’s Eve countdown that lurches across the globe one blocky time zone after another, the shadow of totality is a dark spot on Earth that measures about 100 miles wide and cruises steadily along a path, covering several thousand miles in four to five hours. The human experiences along that path are not isolated events any more than individual dominoes are isolated pillars in a formation. Once that first domino is tipped, we are all linked into something bigger—and unstoppable. We all experience the momentum and the awe together.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

When this phenomenon progresses from Mexico through Texas, the Great Lakes and Canada on April 8, many observers will describe the event as life-changing, well beyond expectations. “You feel a sense of wrongness in those moments before totality , when your surroundings change so rapidly,” says Kate Russo, an author, psychologist and eclipse chaser. “Our initial response is to ask ourselves, ‘Is this an opportunity or a threat?’ When the light changes and the temperature drops, that triggers primal fear. When we have that threat response, our whole body is tuned in to taking in as much information as possible.”

Russo, who has witnessed 13 total eclipses and counting, has interviewed eclipse viewers from around the world. She continues to notice the same emotions felt by all. They begin with that sense of wrongness and primal fear as totality approaches. When totality starts, we feel powerful awe and connection to the world around us. A sense of euphoria develops as we continue watching, and when it’s over, we have a strong desire to seek out the next eclipse.

“The awe we feel during a total eclipse makes us think outside our sense of self. It makes you more attuned to things outside of you,” says Sean Goldy, a postdoctoral fellow at the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University.

Goldy and his team analyzed Twitter data from nearly 2.9 million people during the 2017 total solar eclipse. They found that people within the path of totality were more likely to use not only language that expressed awe but also language that conveyed being unified and affiliated with others. That meant using more “we” words (“us” instead of “me”) and more humble words (“maybe” instead of “always”).

“During an eclipse, people have a broader, more collective focus,” Goldy says. “We also found that the more people expressed awe, the more likely they were to use those ‘we’ words, indicating that people who experience this emotion feel more connected with others.”

This connectivity ties into a sociological concept known as “collective effervescence,” Russo and Goldy say. When groups of humans come together over a shared experience, the energy is greater than the sum of its parts. If you’ve ever been to a large concert or sporting event, you’ve felt the electricity generated by a hive of humans. It magnifies our emotions.

I felt exactly that unified feeling in the open field in Glendo, as if thousands of us were breathing as one. But that’s not the only way people can experience a total eclipse.

During the 2008 total eclipse in Mongolia “I was up on a peak,” Russo recounts. “I was with only my husband and a close friend. We had left the rest of our 25-person tour group at the bottom of the hill. From that vantage point, when the shadow came sweeping in, there was not one man-made thing I could see: no power lines, no buildings or structures. Nothing tethered me to time: It could have been thousands of years ago or long into the future. In that moment, it was as if time didn’t exist.”

Giving us the ability to unhitch ourselves from time—to stop dwelling on time is a unique superpower of a total eclipse. In Russo’s work as a clinical psychologist, she notices patterns in our modern-day mentality. “People with anxiety tend to spend a lot of time in the future. And people with depression spend a lot of time in the past,” she says. An eclipse, time and time again, has the ability to snap us back into the present, at least for a few minutes. “And when you’re less anxious and worried, it opens you up to be more attuned to other people, feel more connected, care for others and be more compassionate,” Goldy says.

Russo, who founded Being in the Shadow , an organization that provides information about total solar eclipses and organizes eclipse events around the world, has experienced this firsthand. Venue managers regularly tell her that eclipse crowds are among the most polite and humble: they follow the rules; they pick up their garbage—they care.

Eclipses remind us that we are part of something bigger, that we are connected with something vast. In the hours before and after totality you have to wear protective glasses to look at the sun, to prevent damage to your eyes. But during the brief time when the moon blocks the last of the sun’s rays, you can finally lower your glasses and look directly at the eclipse. It’s like making eye contact with the universe.

“In my practice, usually if someone says, ‘I feel insignificant,’ that’s a negative thing. But the meaning shifts during an eclipse,” Russo says. To feel insignificant in the moon’s shadow instead means that your sense of self shrinks, that your ego shrinks, she says.

The scale of our “big picture” often changes after witnessing the awe of totality, too. “When you zoom out—really zoom out—it blows away our differences,” Goldy says. When you sit in the shadow of a celestial rock blocking the light of a star 400 times its size that burns at 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit on its surface, suddenly that argument with your partner, that bill sitting on your counter or even the differences among people’s beliefs, origins or politics feel insignificant. When we shift our perspective, connection becomes boundless.

You don’t need to wait for the next eclipse to feel this way. As we travel through life, we lose our relationship with everyday awe. Remember what that feels like? It’s the way a dog looks at a treat or the way my toddler points to the “blue sky!” outside his car window in the middle of rush hour traffic. To find awe, we have to surrender our full attention to the beauty around us. During an eclipse, that comes easily. In everyday life, we may need to be more intentional.

“Totality kick-starts our ability to experience wonder,” Russo says. And with that kick start, maybe we can all use our wonderment faculties more—whether that means pausing for a moment during a morning walk, a hug or a random sunset on a Tuesday. In the continental U.S., we won’t experience another total eclipse until 2044. Let’s not wait until then to seek awe and connection.

This article is part of a special report on the total solar eclipse that will be visible from parts of the U.S., Mexico and Canada on April 8, 2024.

Calming an Angry Personality

Lessons from a success story..

Posted September 7, 2021 | Reviewed by Chloe Williams

• How Can I Manage My Anger?
• Find a therapist to heal from anger
• The effects of an angry personality can be profound. Impatience, rushing, and undue negativity can have their roots in an angry personality.
• Anger can fuel action, passion, and accomplishment but often at the price of errors, fewer reflective ideas, and impeded relationships.
• Sometimes, a zero-tolerance policy can help people change and keep a new goal, such as not getting angry, top-of-mind.
• People with an angry personality might try getting their craved stimulation through lots of engagement but not allowing anger to seep in.

I had always thought of an angry personality as difficult to change, requiring a personality transplant, lots of effort, long-term, with no guarantee of success.

But I recently had a client who—no credit to me—went from being usually seething to quite calm. Here is his story.

As long as I can remember, anger was suffused through me. It was the core driver of who I am. In retrospect, it was partly genetic: I would secrete a lot of adrenaline in response to a given stress —if a loud buzzer would go off in a classroom, I’d jump more than did most of my classmates. But it was more than genetics . I somehow equated anger with passion, and because we tend to like and respect passionate people, I chose to often speak passionately, albeit tinged with anger. The ever latent anger also kept me stimulated, engaged. Anger also gave me an adrenaline rush, which kept me energized in the way that coffee affects people. That’s also why I always kept myself rushing, rationalizing that it was helping my productivity . But now, as I approach age 50, my rationalization that my angry Type-A personality wouldn’t hurt my health for decades is becoming ever flimsier. And as I think about my career and my relationships, whatever success I’ve had has been despite my “passionate” angry personality not because of it. What changed me? I was talking with a friend and got passionate (with that angry tone) about something he had said. He then asked me, “I really like your passion but is there also anger in there?” I felt embarrassed, realized that was true, and suddenly, all the negative effects of my angry personality raced through my mind, including that I rarely have been able to convince people of much, which likely came in part from my angry pushiness. People don’t like to be angrily browbeaten. It makes people defensive, pull back, and be closed to an idea. At that moment, I decided to make a 100 percent commitment to try to never get angry, not just hide my anger, but not be angry at anything. After all, anger rarely helps. For the rest of that conversation, I focused on staying calm, did not interrupt, looked for points of agreement, presented ideas that were benevolent, and noticed that the conversation felt much more pleasant and constructive. After that conversation, I called another friend, with my zero-tolerance for anger top-of-mind. He, who is politically polar of me, usually triggers me into an angry rant. But I stayed calm, listening well and with no interrupting, and instead of jumping in as soon as he finished talking, I took a moment to think and then presented comments slowly, evenly, all of a neutral or positive nature. Not only was the conversation more pleasant, the ideas I came up with were better and better presented. He even seemed a bit more open to my ideas. Next, my internet connection stopped working. Normally, I’d get red-faced, would race to try everything I could, and when that failed, call my internet provider's tech support, fume while waiting on hold, and then, with fury just beneath the surface, impatiently describe my problem, literally shaking. This time, my new policy kept me calm, breathing, and retaining perspective, recognizing that I would, before too long, get my internet connection back. My goal was to make the situation a pleasant problem-solving session for both of us. It took longer than I hoped and I can’t say I look forward to calling tech support again, but unlike after my usual such call, I wasn't drained, and both of us thanked each other: I thanked him for his successful effort and he thanked me for my, ta-dah—patience! It's now been a while and I remain happier, more relaxed, and engaged, even passionate, without requring anger to get there. Being steadily engaged and stimulated is fine but using anger to get there is not. Being quick is fine but hurrying is not. I'm pushing less, for example, not trying to save a second by racing across the street before the car comes. I avoid rather than spur unnecessary conflict. I feel good about not pressing people unduly. I don't push to get credit or pity. I am committed to continuing to try my 100% calm mindset and behavior. I must remember to get my stimulation through engagement, even passion, but without anger.

The takeaway

My client’s story embeds ideas that may be of value to you:

• Anger can be the foundational factor affecting much of one’s thinking, feeling, and interaction. Reducing anger can have a great ripple effect.
• Yes, anger can fuel action, passion, and accomplishment but usually at too high a price: in errors, fewer reflective ideas, reduced persuasiveness, and impeded professional and personal relationships.
• Impatience, rushing, anger, and undue negativity can all be rationalized but ultimately may not be defensible.
• Sometimes, there's a sudden moment of truth when a person decides, "Now I am going to change," whether it's to stop substance abuse , laziness, or being an angry person.
• Sometimes, although certainly not always, a zero-tolerance approach works.
• Living without anger can be key to a happy and successful life.

I read this aloud on YouTube.

Marty Nemko, Ph.D ., is a career and personal coach based in Oakland, California, and the author of 10 books.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience