On the other hand a certain mental disposition toward the person lower down in connection with the self-regarding sentiment may be a precondition of anger. Too great familiarity from an inferior may momentarily lower the self-regarding sentiment to his level and in consequence excite anger; we do not resent a slap on the back by one whom we admire or recognize as our superior, but we do from our inferior. The same act from the one may heighten our self-respect while from the other it is lowered. D. reports a case of anger when he was in a crowd. A boy kept purposely stepping on his heels. He states, “I was not hurt but he acted too familiar for a boy under the circumstances. I took his attitude as a personal matter and felt a little humiliated.” A. reporting a case of anger stimulated by a person whom he holds in low esteem, says, “It was not what X. did so much, but it was his familiar confidential attitude before others that embarrassed me.”
It appears frequently in the observations that it is not what is done or said, so much as it is the attitude of the person, that is so offensive. A too positive and aggressive action, a too great display of wisdom, a too familiar or condescending demeanor, may be the essential element in the stimulus to anger. The following phrases are noted by the different subjects as being an important part of the situation stimulating anger of the type now being treated. C.—“I resented his too dignified air more than anything else.” G.—“What angered me most was his condescending attitude as if he knew it all.” I.—“He acted too wise and I was aware he was trying to lord it over us. That was the most offensive part.” H.—“He sat and stared at me as if he thought I didn’t know what I was talking about.” F.—“He took on a wise air implying that he had already passed through the stage in which I now was.” E.—“It was not his statement so much as it was his rather spiteful attitude that angered me.” A.—“It was not what he said. It was his haughty air and little condescending laugh in dismissing the matter that rang in my ears.”
While in the presence of a situation that lowers self-feeling, even though persons may not be connected with the situation, it is a common characteristic to refer the anger to some person. The bounds of justice may be, for the moment, overstepped. The dim awareness with some, that the person is not to be blamed, is ignored for the time, while the tendency is strongest in consciousness to give expression to the emotion. The individual differences here are quite marked. G. apparently has developed a habit of referring his anger to a principle, ignoring the personality. In many of his observations, persons were connected with a situation, but were neglected in his attention to the principle violated. A business man had told him an untruth causing him difficulty. G. states, “I was not angry at the man. That was his way of doing business.” In the course of his emotional experience, his anger became rather intense, referring to the business ethics practiced. The degree in which the sense of justice is ignored under the influence of anger of this type is also a matter of wide individual difference.
In the observations collected, anger at one’s self appears quite frequently. There have been no cases found, in which anger at one’s self develops purely from a fore-period of irritation. The subject takes the matter to himself and feels a little humiliated and degraded and may react against his own personality in the same manner that he would against another. Two observers, B. and G., quite frequently get angry at themselves. A. reports that this sort of anger rarely occurs with him. G. observes the following case. After he had been repeatedly humiliated by his own failure, he says, “I felt as if I were so inefficient. I said to myself, ‘If I had a man working for me and he should do work in that manner I would discharge him.’” G. then continued to talk to himself like another person in rather severe condemnatory language. B. was reading a book. He could not understand the author’s demonstration. He had made several trials at it. He states, “I felt as if I must be stupid, somehow; there was a slight feeling of worry and dejection. The idea of my stupidity was followed by anger at myself for being so stupid. I clinched my fists and threw my arms in angry demonstration, feeling as if I would like to pummel myself. I went over the demonstration again with an attitude of carefulness and finally concluded that it was the author who was hazy instead of myself. I slammed the book down on the table and broke forth angrily, ‘You, X., are the one who is stupid, you don’t make it clear.’ This anger at the author was rather pleasant in quality. I felt a sort of triumph over him.”
Another situation quite common in the origin of anger with a fore-period of lowered self-feeling, is its appearance at times with greater intensity after the actual outside stimulus is passed. One becomes more angry in recalling afterward what was said, than he was at the time of the offense. This belated origin of anger appears in the observations of all the subjects studied. It may be noted that anger with a fore-period of irritation does not appear in this retarded manner. In the recall of an incident in imagination, anger may become quite intense; while it may be at the time of the incident, there was no awareness of any tendency to anger. Mild anger at the time of the initial stimulus may become intensified in its recall. In such cases there was evidently some element lacking in the mental situation stimulating anger. An offensive statement in the heat of an irascible discussion may be ignored. A rather severe thrust may seem proper, but when recalled in connection with another mental situation, the emotional content may be entirely changed. X. in the course of an argument with E. implied, “You never will know as much about the subject under discussion as Y.” “At the time I noted his statement and was aware that it was a thrust at myself, but I had no feeling about the matter then. I considered that I was producing the better argument, and his personal thrust I was aware was an admission on his part that he knew I was. To-day I recalled his statement and felt degraded and angry.” Then C. proceeded to plan a series of cutting remarks that he would like to tell X. In some instances the presence of a too active aggressive attitude at the time of the stimulus seems to predispose against a too easy lowering of self-esteem, and consequently anger with a fore-period of negative self-feeling does not appear. But let one momentarily lose faith in his point of view or fail in words to express it, and he becomes more sensitive to the thrusts of his opponent’s argument.
Another factor partly accounts for the greater emotional intensity of the recalled incident. The conventional control of emotions during social contact may be relaxed during the memory recall. The same ethical standard is not required for one’s private thinking as in actual contact with others. In this respect there is rather wide individual difference with the subjects studied. Though in general with persons of rather intense emotions, there is a marked difference in the ethical standard they practice, when the incident is present to consciousness, and the standard used when the anger occurs from the imaged situation; with all persons studied at times during their most intense anger emotions, the imaginative reaction is far more crude and unethical, and consequently the imaged anger may be more intense. A third factor may be involved here. A personal thrust may be partly ignored at the time without lowered dignity because it is given with a smile or a friendly attitude, but when recalled later, the friendliness may be neglected and consequently anger is more intense. A fourth condition that partly accounts for more intense anger in the imaged situation, is that the anger consciousness of this type is usually cumulative. With an entirely novel experience, a certain amount of resistance must be broken down before the emotion develops. The emotion seems to develop by a cumulative process through a series of stimuli. One personal thrust in a situation in which there is involved no previous emotional excitement, may be ignored or the humiliation may be borne at the time with no anger reactions; but when it is repeated one or more times under similar circumstances, there is present a characteristic mental situation for the development of anger. The repeated occurrence of the incident in the imagination intensifies the feelings till anger becomes fully developed. E.’s observations will illustrate. “During the argument with X., I was in splendid humor, enjoying myself to the fullest and naturally supposed everybody was.” Referring to a statement made by X. during the argument, E. states, “The glow of the conflict had not entirely departed when I began to see his statement in an entirely new light as reflecting on myself, then I felt somewhat distressed and overcome to a slight degree, by a feeling of abasement but no resentment against X. The next day at ten o’clock I was recalling the events of the argument. There was still a feeling of abasement but now it stirred me to anger. I found myself going over it and thinking what I might have said, and what I would say the next time.”
Anger Without an Immediate Feeling Fore-period. This study was begun tentatively with the view held by Wundt [(21)] that each emotion of anger has an immediate feeling fore-period. The study had not progressed far till this view had to be abandoned. It early appeared in the observations that anger may begin rather suddenly with no initial feeling fore-period, which the observer is able to find. The subject reports that he suddenly finds himself in the midst of an emotion of anger before he is scarcely aware of it, and is giving verbal and motor expressions usually accompanying such emotions. In many of the emotions of this type there is evidence in the observations that the emotion refers to a previous emotional experience. From the mental disposition left over from the previous emotion, the emotion suddenly emerges without passing through the cumulative process that is necessary with an entirely novel emotional experience. In other words the way has previously been broken so that it is not necessary to break down the same amount of resistance. A. observes, “Sitting in my room, I imaged X. At once I was angry, motor expression not marked at first. X. was imaged in a rather positive and demonstrative attitude which he sometimes takes. I found myself with quite a good deal of motor activity saying in voco-motor fashion as if talking to X.——I was partly aware of three former disagreements with X., the imagery of the circumstances of the last one was most clearly defined. I imagined X. a little humbled by my remark. The emotional experience from the first was pleasant. I felt a little victorious in the imaginary act of dealing a telling thrust.”
With all persons studied, there is evidence of a previously developed mental disposition against certain persons and against certain principles which allows the anger point to be reached in a short cut fashion. Anger is easily attained without the initial feeling either of irritation or lowered self-feeling. Anger that rises from this situation is usually pleasant in quality. The mental disposition which is connected with this sudden origin of anger may be present during the later recall of the emotion. It is also shown by the frequent re-occurrence that the same situation may repeatedly give rise to anger. B. has a rather strongly developed sentiment against ministers who preach what they do not believe; G. against persons who do their work carelessly, especially manufacturers who send out goods of inferior quality. I. has a marked sentiment against acts of cruelty in the treatment of animals. D. reacts rather vigorously against persons who are disloyal to friendship. These sentiments go back to early experiences in the life of the individuals.
B. in talking with X. directed the conversation to ministers who preach what they really do not believe. He took Dr. Y. as an example. He had previously seen Dr. Y. drinking beer with the boys and had resented his behavior. He began to vituperate to X. against Y., giving instances and telling his opinion rather vigorously about such men who have a double personality. “Before I was scarcely aware of it, I was in the midst of motor and verbal expressions of righteous indignation. I enjoyed it all very much. I always take delight in making myself angry with ministers of this sort.” B. has reported other instances of his anger against ministers of this type. A case from I. will illustrate further. “I had the same recurring anger for three weeks. A delivery boy who passes about the same time each day goes by whipping and abusing his horse. Anger arises each time the incident occurs. The sight made me pleasantly indignant. I have the image of an old German, living near my home as a child, who treated his horse so cruelly. The idea of telephoning to the police occurs to me, but the boy goes on and the idea is abandoned.”