Venting Anger May Do More Harm Than Good

[Robert_S]

FOR years the popular wisdom has been that strong feelings of anger ought to be expressed. It was healthier, people were frequently advised, to let loose the reins of anger, to ''let it all hang out'' like so much laundry.

---snip---


A growing body of evidence suggests that exactly how anger is handled may be less important than the fact that anger is so frequently felt in the first place. While venting anger may help to head off some forms of illness, studies suggest it may actually contribute to others. More important, the effect of venting anger on social interactions is often devastating.

''Talking out an emotion doesn't reduce it, it rehearses it,'' wrote Dr. Tavris, a social psychologist who has gathered hundreds of research references to support her views. ''People who are most prone to give vent to their rage get angrier, not less angry.''

For example, she cited a study among laid-off engineers in San Diego, which showed that the men who were invited to ventilate their anger actually became more hostile toward the company or their supervisors than those who were asked to criticize themselves. In another study, third-grade children who were encouraged to express their anger toward a child who had frustrated them ended up liking that child less than children did who were not permitted to express anger.

Read Moar!

[Clinton Huxley]

Of course this is true. One must rigidly control ones emotions at all times. The stiff upper lip really is the best.

[FBM]

I've heard this from more than one source over the past few years. I agree with it. Expressing anger once just makes it easier to do next time. There's a way of diffusing the anger internally without "stuffing" it or denying it.

[cronus]

Hardly news. You become what you practice.

[JimC]

Exactly!

Hold it in, let it ripen, and fully mature...

Then find yourself a rifle and a church tower...

[rainbow]

Hardly news. You become what you practice.

Half-baked research like this makes me want to go out and punch someone.

[FBM]

Hardly news. You become what you practice.

Half-baked research like this makes me want to go out and punch someone.

Hey! Don't you start!

[rainbow]

Hardly news. You become what you practice.

Half-baked research like this makes me want to go out and punch someone.

Hey! Don't you start!

On the other hand if these laid off engineers had done Dance Therapy, there may have been a different outcome.

[Hermit]

...a controversial new book...

The New York Times is into advertorials? Who would have thunk it?

[cronus]

Part of the reason religious types live longer is no doubt the anger management, by leaving the fire and fury to God rather than in the gut. Anyone can do it. Don't hold on to anger, give things time. As the wheel goes one way so it goes the other. Revenge is a dish served best when cold. All these things. Wisdom that comes with the years if you live long enough to see them.

[pErvinalia]

Only 30 years old.

[Bella Fortuna]

Only 30 years old.

Your last victim?

It is funny that this notion has been around a long time, by the look of this article, and it's only now making the rounds, it seems - I've heard the idea that 'venting' anger does nothing but keep it fueled from a few places lately. I think I've always felt it to be true in my gut, because people who seem prone to expressing or wallowing in angry feelings seem to just stay that way - it doesn't get released and make them a happier person.

[Beatsong]

Interesting.

I think a lot of our assumptions about the effects of getting internal emotions "out" of us come from Freudian ideas about repression, which have since been largely debunked as fiction with little or no scientific basis. Those ideas took an incredibly strong hold in popular consciousness over the course of the twentieth century, however, particularly feeding into the sexual revolution and general opening up of society in the 60s and 70s.

They might well contain more misleading bollox than actual useful, accurate modelling of the psyche.

I hear people say stuff on the basis of this assumed repression all the time, and find myself thinking, "hmm, how do you actually know that?" Like, girls from catholic schools or families will all get pregnant at 16 because their sexuality has been "repressed"; kids whose parents cut out all junk food will end up bingeing on it and becoming obese and toothless because their sugar craving has been "repressed"; married couples who allow a source of difference between them to just carry on being rather than relentlessly trying to "solve" it will end up divorced because it will tear them apart. Some of these things may be true, sometimes (or not), but nobody ever seems to feel they ought to stop and check before just assuming the action of repression and consequent violent reaction.

[JimC]

Interesting.

I think a lot of our assumptions about the effects of getting internal emotions "out" of us come from Freudian ideas about repression, which have since been largely debunked as fiction with little or no scientific basis. Those ideas took an incredibly strong hold in popular consciousness over the course of the twentieth century, however, particularly feeding into the sexual revolution and general opening up of society in the 60s and 70s.

They might well contain more misleading bollox than actual useful, accurate modelling of the psyche.

I hear people say stuff on the basis of this assumed repression all the time, and find myself thinking, "hmm, how do you actually know that?" Like, girls from catholic schools or families will all get pregnant at 16 because their sexuality has been "repressed"; kids whose parents cut out all junk food will end up bingeing on it and becoming obese and toothless because their sugar craving has been "repressed"; married couples who allow a source of difference between them to just carry on being rather than relentlessly trying to "solve" it will end up divorced because it will tear them apart. Some of these things may be true, sometimes (or not), but nobody ever seems to feel they ought to stop and check before just assuming the action of repression and consequent violent reaction.

There might be some truth in it; I was forbidden to drink gin as a child, and look how that turned out!

[Audley Strange]

Anger tends to be a manifestation of frustration. I remember a psychology lecturer telling us during training that what angers us most is often that which we recognise as flaws in ourselves projected outwards towards others, which certainly hold some truth in it, I think.

As for suppressing it, I think there is a good reason for the "count to ten" advice people give, which is that anger is an emotion and like all emotional states is actually quite fleeting and so by giving oneself a moment or to before reacting can actually allow the rational mind to kick back in because lashing out can and does escalate situations where anger is the tool for discourse. One cannot win an emotional argument, the best one can hope for is to placate those indulging in it. However to do so is to legitimise the person's emotional state beyond the subjective.

We were told, often, to completely disengage with mental patients who were in hyper or aggressive states. Let them rant but do nothing to perpetuate it. Its advice I've found beneficial both in the hospital setting and in RL.