Continental J.

Arts and Humanities 7 (1): 1 - 10, 2015

Wilolud Journals, 2015
Printed in Nigeria

ISSN: 2141 - 4092

http://www.wiloludjournal.com
doi:10.5707/cjah.2015.7.1.1.10

RESEARCH PAPER
GENDER, MARITAL STATUS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS IN ANGER EVOCATION:
IMPLICATION FOR COUNSELORS AND MANAGERS OF ORGANIZATIONS
1

Esau Nanfwang Mwantu, 1Zubairu Kwambo Dagona, 1Retji James Dakas and 2Justice Chidi Ngwama
Department of Psychology, University of Jos, Jos, Nigeria and 2Crawford University, Igbesa, Ogun State, Nigeria
ABSTRACT
Anger is an emotion which has over the years influenced the lives of men and women in very
diverse ways. Anger expression among the genders has been found to be one major reason that
hampers harmonious living relationships among various people and groups. The present study
examined gender differences in anger evocation among Nigerians. A sample of 196
respondents (102 males and 94 females) was selected across four tertiary institutions in Plateau
State-Nigeria. The Clinical Anger Scale (CAS) was administered to the respondents in order to
collect data for the study. The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics of
the mean, standard deviation and Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). The result
indicated significant gender differences in the expression of anger and upset among Nigerians
F (1, 196) = 1.683, P < 0.05.). Married men and women significantly differ in the events that
provoke them to anger F (1, 196) = 1.202, P < 0.05. Psychological factors also influence anger
evocation in male and female Nigerians (F (1, 196) = 221.269; P > .05. It was concluded that
anger expression is significantly related to gender. The implications of these findings were
discussed with respect to social interaction within the family, at work, and in the society and
some recommendations made to help family counselors and managers of organizations.
KEYWORDS: anger, counselors, gender, managers, marital status, psychological factors
Received for Publication: 11/04/15
Accepted for Publication: 16/06/15
Corresponding Author: mwantueujpsy@yahoo.com

INTRODUCTION
Anger or upset is an essential variable that can have psychologically negative impact on the peaceful and
harmonious co-existence of people. The negative impact of anger among men and women is quite enormous which
as a result, has scattered and scuttled many relationships among different people including husbands and wives,
friends, relations, and colleagues at work; among communities and nations. Because of the importance of this
concept in advancing useful information about human emotions in particular and human social interaction in
general, it has over the years attracted the attention of researchers in different fields of endeavour.
According to Dafoore (2006) an anger management researcher, anger is described as a pressure cooker which is
held for certain amount of time before it explodes. Bonigk and Steffgen (2013) note that anger is an emotion that is
related to an individuals cognitive and psychological interpretation of having been offended, wronged, unfairly
treated or even denied; and a tendency to react through retaliation. Psychologists in their research on this concept
have recognized three types of anger and upset that is quite often exhibited by people namely hasty and sudden
All rights reserved
This work by Wilolud Journals is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

Mwantu et al.,: Continental J. Arts and Humanities 7 (1): 1 - 10, 2015

anger, settled and deliberate anger, and dispositional anger (Campbell and Muncer, 1987; Cox, Stabb and Hulgus,
2000; Russ, 1989). Campbell and Muncer for example, explained that the first two forms of anger are episodic in
nature. To them, hasty and sudden anger is a connected impulse for self-preservation while the settled and deliberate
anger is a reaction to perceived deliberate harm or unfair treatment by others. The third form (dispositional anger) is
related more to character traits than to instincts or cognition. For example, irritability, sullenness, and churlishness
are all associated with dispositional traits.
Gottman and Natavous (1993) note that motivation for anger often involves revenge or punishment while Averill
(1982) argues that anger is a socially constructed syndrome consisting of expressive delays, physiological arousal
and responses and subjective experiences that are largely determined by social roles and functions of culture
embedded within the individual. Anger is generally believed to have a universally recognized facial display and a
distinct psycho-physiological correlate in cross cultural studies of facial recognition (Allen and Haccount, 2010;
Brody, Lovas and Hay, 1995; Ekman, 1994). Ekman further noted that facial expression of anger and upset among
the genders is however, difficult to label and recognized.
Anger is similar in many respects to other emotions such as frustration, distress, hostility and rage (Frijda, 2010;
Tavris, 2003). Frijda (2010) further concluded that anger is caused almost universally by harm inflicted on skin,
possession, or status. Mesquite and Frijda (1992) however, suggested five antecedents for anger expression among
the genders to include frustration, insult, violation of someones rights, physical threat, and being the recipient of
another persons anger (transferred aggression). Thomas (1989) cited the most common elicitor of anger and upset
to be breach of personal relationships, followed by being treated unfairly. Unfortunately, only a few studies have
tried to address the extent to which these reasons for the evocation of anger and upset apply equally to men and
women or even differ in them (Brody, 1993; Brody, Lovas and Hay, 1995; Faber and Burns, 1996; Kring and
Gordon, 1998).
The concept of anger has been variedly studied by researchers in psychology from different theoretical traditions.
Many theories have been formulated to explain the concept of anger and upset; as a result of this, diverse theories
exist today that try to provide explanations to this behaviour. Such theories include the implicit theories proposed by
Karen Wach (1950), Ekman (1971), and Bowlby (1973); the evolutionary theory of emotions (Muncer, 1975), the
balance theory (Gottman and Natavous, 1993), and the cognitive-behavioural theory (Beck and Weisher, 2007),
among many others. The implicit theorists believe that people are born with basic set of emotional responses that
appear to exist across all cultures and religions. These theorists generally view anger as an innate concept that can be
elicited by both internal and external stimuli (Bowlby, 1973; Buss, 1989; Ekman, 1971; Wach, 1950). For example,
this group of researchers found in their studies that one month old infants were able to express interest, joy, surprise,
sadness, anger, disgust and fear (Bowlby, 1973; Wach, 1950) which is different forms of emotion.
The cognitive-behavioural theory (Beck and Weisher, 2007), assumes that individuals who experience any kind of
emotional distress such as depression, anxiety, and anger are usually engaging in biased ways of thinking. They
believe that the way a person acts results from his or her learning and past experiences. To them, a persons
propensity for a certain behaviour such as aggression or violence that is due to anger or provocation may be
influenced by whether or not that behaviour was reinforced (rewarded, punished or learnt) in the past. The
theoretical framework of this study was therefore, formulated on the bases of all the above stated theories. The study
believes that our emotion of anger and upset is due to traits found in us, inherited from parents, or even learnt from
the environment through interaction with others.
A comprehensive study of anger and upset among women that included interview and self-report measures found
the most common elicitors of anger among women to be interpersonal, intrapersonal, and societal factors (Eagly and
Steff, 1986). Some studies that have directly examined gender differences in the evocation of anger and upset
however, failed to find differences between men and women (Allen and Haccount, 2010; Averill, 1982; Bowlby,
All rights reserved
This work by Wilolud Journals is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

Mwantu et al.,: Continental J. Arts and Humanities 7 (1): 1 - 10, 2015

1973). Frodi (1977) and Kring and Gordon (1998) for example observed that both men and women reported feeling
angry after being provoked by the opposite sex. Other studies however, found significant differences in the
evocation of anger and upset among the genders such as men exhibiting more anger and upset following female
aggression than male aggression and women reporting having greater anger following aggression from a male (Buss,
1989; Harris, 1993).
One important factor that distinguishes studies that do and do not find gender differences in the evocation of anger
and upset according to Tavris (2003), is the context in which the reasons for anger and upset are asked about,
specifically, in the context of close relationships or interaction between men and women. Brody, Lovas and Hay
(1995) found that although both men and women reported betrayal of trust to be the most provoking elicitor of anger
and upset; women were reported exhibiting more anger following betrayal of trust, rebuff, negligence, and
unwarranted criticism than men. Buss (1989) further found that women reported greater anger and upset than men
following mens sexual aggressiveness, condescending remarks, inconsiderate treatment, neglecting or rejecting
behaviour. Evocation of anger and upset among males and females can potentially mobilize psychological resources
and boost determination towards the correction of wronged behaviour, promotion of social justice, communication
of negative sentiment and redress of grievances (Ekman, 1994; Tavris, 2003).
On the other hand, many studies have pointed that anger and upset can be destructive especially when it does not
find appropriate outlet in expression. Anger and upset in its strong form, impairs ones ability to process information
and to exert cognitive control over ones behaviour (Frijda, 1992; Tavris, 2003). For example, an angry person may
lose his or her objectivity, empathy, prudence or thoughtfulness and may cause harm to others. People feel angry
when they sense someone they care about offended them and when they are certain about the nature and cause of the
angering event (Buss, 1989).
Anger is a multidimensional emotion that involves an appraisal of responsibility for wrongdoing by another person
or entity and often includes the goal of correcting the perceived wrongness (Gibson and Callister, 2010; Bonigk and
Steffgen, 2013). Anger reactions bear functional and dysfunctional implications for work life and performance as
well as for individual well-being. Traditionally, research on anger and even more so in the organizational context,
focuses on the maladaptive consequences of anger and thus the negative aspect of anger.
Psychologically, anger may result in stress, a sense of guilt and crisis, severe loss of personal productivity at home
and at the workplace; as well as an inability to meet personal social responsibilities (Averill, 1982; Bowlby, 1973;
Campbell and Muncer, 1987). Anger brings confusion and misery rather than peace, happiness and fulfillment
among people and between members of organizations.
This study therefore, aimed at examining gender differences in the evocation of anger and upset among Nigerians.
The study tried to examine whether there are conceptual differences that exist between Nigerian males and females
in the evocation of anger and upset and the psychological implications of such behaviour for social interaction at
home, in the workplace and the community at large. Specifically, the study had the following objectives to pursue:
(i)
To investigate the influence of gender in the evocation of anger and upset among Nigerians.
(ii)
To investigate the influence of marital status of a respondent in the evocation of anger and upset
among Nigerian males and females.
(iii)
To examine the influence of psychological factors in anger evocation among Nigerian males and
females.
In order to achieve this, the following hypotheses were formulated and tested.
1. Female Nigerians would significantly evoke anger and upset in their social relationships more than male
Nigerians would do.

All rights reserved

This work by Wilolud Journals is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

Mwantu et al.,: Continental J. Arts and Humanities 7 (1): 1 - 10, 2015

2.
3.

Gender and marital status would have significant influence on female Nigerians with respect to their
evocation of anger and upset more than male Nigerians.
Psychological factors would have significant influence on female Nigerians with respect to their evocation
of anger and upset more than male Nigerians.

METHOD
Design
This study utilized a multi-factorial design with three independent variables (IVs) and one dependent variable (DV).
Gender, marital status and psychological factors of the respondents were the independent variables used in the study
while anger evocation or upset was the dependent variable. The IV (gender) had two levels (male and female);
marital status had three levels (married, divorce and not married) and psychological factors was measured at three
levels (cognitive, affective and behavioral response perspectives) while the DV was anger evocation, respectively.
The study was therefore, a 2x3x3 multi-factorial design.
Research Setting
This study was conducted using employees of four tertiary institutions located in three Local Government Areas of
Plateau State- Nigeria; these are the University of Jos and the Federal School of Forestry located in Jos North Local
Government Area; Plateau State Polytechnic Barkin Ladi in Barkin Ladi Local Government Area, and the Federal
College of Education Pankshin, in Pankshin Local Government Area. The reason for the choice of respondents from
these institutions is that they are a mixture of federal and state owned organizations whose employees cut across
many ethnic nationalities including the host communities of the institutions.
Participants
Participants for this particular study were 196 employees (102 males and 94 females) drawn from four tertiary
institutions in Plateau State. Ages of the participants ranged from 18-50 years with a mean of 29.27 years; SD =
8.73. Participants cut across the three main religions in Nigeria namely Christianity, Islam and the African
Traditional Religion (ATR).
Instrument
The psychological scale utilized for data collection in this study was the Clinical Anger Scale (CAS). The Clinical
Anger Scale was developed by Snell Jr, Gum, Shuck, Mosley and Hite (1995) mainly to measure the level of anger
exhibited by a person. It is a 21-item objective self-report feelings inventory developed to measure the syndrome of
clinical anger. The following symptoms of anger are measured by the CAS items: anger now, anger about the future,
anger about things, angry-hostile feelings, annoying others, angry about self, angry misery, wanting to hurt others,
shouting at people, irritated now, social interference, decision interference, alienating others, work interference,
sleep interference, fatigue, appetite interference, health interference, thinking interference, and sexual interference
(Snell Jr et al, 1995).
The CAS has 21 groups of statements (4 statements per group) and respondents were to select the single statement
that best described how they felt (e g item 1: A= I do not feel angry, B= I feel angry, C= Iam angry most of the time
now, and D= Iam so angry most of the time that I cannot stand it). The four statements in each cluster varied in
symptom intensity, with more intense clinical anger being associated with statement D. Each cluster of statements
was scored on a 4-point Likert scale with A= 0, B= 1, C= 2, and D= 3. Participants responses on the CAS were
summed so that higher scores corresponded to greater clinical anger (21 items; range 0-63).
A scoring procedure was adopted such that CAS scores is accomplished through the following interpretive scores 0
13 = minimal clinical anger; 14 19 = mild clinical anger; 20 28 = moderate clinical anger; and 29 63 = severe
clinical anger. The Cronbarch alpha reliability coefficient of the entire scale is .94 for both males and females. It is

All rights reserved

This work by Wilolud Journals is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

Mwantu et al.,: Continental J. Arts and Humanities 7 (1): 1 - 10, 2015

.95 for (males only) and .92 for (females only). The CAS also had a high validity coefficient score of r = .82 for both
males and females.
Procedure
The data were gathered in the month of December, 2014. Questionnaires were administered to the respondents at
various points of interaction within the institutions covered in the study. After explaining the goals of the study to
the authorities of the institutions visited for the study, permissions were granted for the study to be conducted.
Participation was voluntary and informed consent was therefore, obtained by participants signing the Informed
Consent Form that was attached to the Questionnaire. Since all participants were literate, there was no problem with
completion of the Questionnaires. Participants were instructed not to indicate their names anywhere on the material
administered to them.
Because participation in the study was voluntary, no financial incentive was given to the participants. It took all the
respondents an average time of 25 minutes to complete all sections of the Questionnaire. The researchers and two
trained Assistants personally administered 200 questionnaires over a period of one week, out of which 196
questionnaires were retrieved with usable data. This represents 98% return rate. The remaining 4 questionnaires
were not returned after they were administered to the respondents; probably due to the tied schedules of the
respondents.
Data analysis
The data collected for this study were statistically analyzed. The statistical analyses were carried out by means of the
SPSS 19 Program (SPSS, 2009). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze socio-demographic variables of the
participants such as age, sex, marital status and religion. The inferential statistical test used was the Multivariate
Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). All the tests assumed 5% level of significance.
RESULTS
The results were based on the hypotheses formulated for the study. Three hypotheses were tested in the study using
Multivariate Analysis of Variance statistics (MANOVA) and the results are presented below. Result on Table 1
shows that there are significant gender differences in the expression of anger and upset between male and female
Nigerians. The Analysis of Variance revealed that both males and females do significantly differ in the expression of
anger and upset when provoked F (63, 196) = 1.683, P<0.05.
Result on Table 1 also indicates that marital status has significant influence on the respondents with respect to their
evocation of anger and upset F (1, 196) = 1.202, P < 0.05. Responses of the participants indicated that males and
females are influenced differently by factors that cause anger and upset to them. Married men and women in this
study differed in the specific events that provoke or trigger them to anger.
Table 1: Test of between subjects effects of the influence of gender, marital status and psychological factors of
respondents on anger evocation
Source
Type III Sum Of Square
df
Mean Square
F
Sig
Corrected Model
4.872a
22
.221
1.202
.133
Interception
4.104b
22
.187
1.075
.000
Gender
21.791
63
.346
1.683
.006
Marital Status
13.808
1
13.808
79.575
.000
Psychological Factors
40.773
1
40.773
221.269
.252
Error
31.378
173
.184
Total
637.000
196
Corrected total
36.750
195

All rights reserved

This work by Wilolud Journals is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

Mwantu et al.,: Continental J. Arts and Humanities 7 (1): 1 - 10, 2015

The study further explored the influence of psychological factors on the evocation of anger and upset between males
and females (See Table 1). Results of the analysis of variance indicated a significant influence of psychological
factors on the expression of anger and upset among the respondents (F (1, 196) = 221.269; P > .05. (see Table 1).
The result indicated that both males and females are significantly influenced by psychological factors to evoke anger
but only differ in the angering events that cause the provocation.
DISCUSSION
The primary aim of this study was to investigate whether there are significant gender differences existing among
Nigerians in their anger evocation and its implication for family counselors and managers of Nigerian organizations.
The study specifically aimed at finding out the extent to which anger and upset significantly affects social
relationships of men and women in various settings including the home, workplace, and the society in general. The
first hypothesis stated that female Nigerians would significantly evoke anger and upset in their social relationships
more than male Nigerians would do. The study found significant gender differences in the evocation of anger F (63,
196) = 1.683, P < 0.05. Result of the analysis revealed that both males and females significantly differ in the
expression of anger and upset in their social interactions with others whether in the family, the organization or the
community. The result indicated that differences exist between males and females especially in the angering events
that provoke them.
Responses of the participants in this study revealed that the most common elicitors of anger in females were sexual
aggression by a male, betrayal of trust in a relationship, frustration, unfair treatment, negligence and insult. For
males, the most common elicitors of anger were withholding of sex by a woman, infliction of social status, insult,
betrayal of trust, and witnessing someones rights being violated.
The result obtained from the test of this particular hypothesis corroborates previous studies such as Buss (1989),
Harris (1993) and Miron-Spektor and Rafaeli (2009) that all found similar results in their respective investigations.
Across both samples, males expressed upset about females being neglecting or rejecting, self-centered, moody and
physically self-absorbed as well as being sexually withholding. The study like in Buss (1989) found strong
evidences for mens expression of anger and upset about womens withholding of sex. Females expressed anger and
upset more than did males about tendencies towards being condescending, unfaithful, inconsiderate, unnecessarily
abusive, sexually aggressive and possessive, and emotionally constricted (Bonigk and Steffgen, 2013; Buss, 1989;
Miron-Spektor, and Rafaeli, 2009).Other group differences for habitual anger reactions based on gender showed that
men have a slightly higher tendency to vent their anger than women and tend to ruminate less over the anger
incident than women.
The implication of this result to the genders in particular and the family institution in general is that when couples
are easily angered by factors such as the ones stated above, it tempers with social interaction within the family and
further affects the peaceful co-existence of the family members. When anger is part of a family's tradition, it spreads
itself much like a virus to future generations. The wider the spread, the more difficult the anger is to contain. The
effect of anger in families is usually apparent in the way that members relate with one another. Our earliest
experiences communicating and relating to others occurs within the family. Patterns of anger in relationships are
then taken and recreated in later relationships outside the family including workplace. Such anger can lead to
destructive behaviour and human vices such as uncooperative attitude, fighting, divorce, and sometimes even
murder in the family (Mwantu, Kazi, Damilep and Mwanti, 2014).
The second hypothesis which states that gender and marital status would have significant influence on female
Nigerians with respect to their evocation of anger and upset more than male Nigerians was supported. The study
found diverse sources of difference between the sexes that are especially striking including upset about the spouse
being condescending, possessive, rejecting, abusive, inconsiderate, self-absorbed, moody, emotionally constricted,
and self-centered. Two sex differences emerged in this particular study that is especially striking. Women showed a
All rights reserved
This work by Wilolud Journals is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

Mwantu et al.,: Continental J. Arts and Humanities 7 (1): 1 - 10, 2015

higher level of upset about men being inconsiderate and condescending while men on the other hand, showed higher
incidence of women being moody and physically self-absorbed and self-centered.
On the marital front, women were judged to be far more upset than were men by the husbands sexual
aggressiveness, whereas men were judged to be more upset than women by the wifes rejection or sexual
withholding. Results further supported the hypothesis that within couples, mens dissatisfaction is usually linked
with womens sexual withholding, whereas womens dissatisfaction is linked with mens sexual aggressiveness
(Bonigk and Steffgen, 2013; Buss, 1989). Women anger according to Thomas (1993) and Dittmann (2003) is
misdirected in passive-aggressive maneuvers such as sulking or destructive gossips. They also more often are found
to be angry longer, more resentful and less likely to express their anger compared with men (DiGuiseppe and
Tafrate, 2003). DiGuiseppe and Tafrate further found that women use indirect aggression by writing off a higher
number of people intending to never speak to them again because of their anger with such people.
The third hypothesis states that psychological factors would have significant influence on female Nigerians with
respect to their evocation of anger and upset more than male Nigerians. It was discovered in this study that
psychological components of behaviour such as the cognitive (thinking), affective (feelings), and the behavioural
response components all simultaneously play important roles in the evocation of anger and upset among the
respondents. The three components of behaviour are utilized by the individual whether male or female in perceiving
and determining what is provocative and indeed the level of such provocation. These components of behaviour also
influence the mode of thinking, feeling and response rate of the affected individual to the angering event. Cognitive
and affective factors influence human perception and hence the anger status of the individual and his or her
behavioural responses via his/her reactions. In this study too, these psychological factors had influenced the
evocation of anger and upset amongst men and women differently partly due to the kind of gender socialization they
have received (Dittmann, 2003; Thomas, 1993). According to Thomas, men have been encouraged to be more
overt with their anger. For example, because of the way that the genders are socialized, if boys have a conflict on
the playground, they act it out with their fists. Girls have been encouraged to keep their anger down; indeed to
express it covertly. The study further revealed three common roots to womens anger: powerlessness, injustice and
the irresponsibility of other people. This result is consonant with Thomas 1993 conclusion on Womens Anger
Study who carried out a large scale investigation involving 536 women between the ages of 25-66 years and
concluded that the three factors were responsible for womens anger.
However, while research has not yet suggested that different factors trigger anger in men and women; studies have
continued to uncover differences in how men and women experience and express it (Cox, et al, 2003; DiGiuseppe
and Tafrate, 2003; Dittmann, 2003). This particular study like DiGiuseppe and Tafrate (2003), found that
differences in mens and womens total anger scores were not significant but found significant differences in the
way the genders experience and express anger. It was found that men scored higher in physical aggression, and
experiences of impulsively dealing with their anger. Men also more often had a revenge motive to their anger and
scored higher on coercing other people. This is particularly true as exemplified by the membership of men to women
involved in terrorist acts and terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, ISIL and Boko Haram. Women on
the other hand, scored higher on passive aggression and were found to be angry longer, more resentful and less
likely to express their anger compared with men.
Generally, these experiences have significant implications for the psychological functioning of the genders in the
family, in social settings and at work. For example, studies have shown that anger has caused the divorce of
marriages (Mwantu, Kazi, Damilep, and Mwanti, 2014; Saposnek and Chip, 2004); and makes people work harder
not smarter (Miron-Spektor, Treister, Rafeali, and Schwarz-Cohen, 2011) and affects an employees creativity and
level of analytical thinking (Sher, 2013). Other studies have concluded that exposure to anger limit the ways in
which people interpret others behaviour and affects their problem-solving ability. When the expression of anger
becomes a common occurrence or worse, a lifestyle, it takes a toll on ones health, which is why the subject of anger
All rights reserved
This work by Wilolud Journals is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

Mwantu et al.,: Continental J. Arts and Humanities 7 (1): 1 - 10, 2015

is so important to discuss openly and honestly (Sher, 2013). This mindset is not useful for situations that require
creativity and making novel connections between loosely associated items or ideas.
In organizations, managers open display of anger toward their subordinates or colleagues may not push them
toward higher performance. It might only increase employee performance on simple, strictly analytical tasks; but
will have negative consequences when employees need to be creative and solve novel problems (Sher, 2013).
Psychologists using psychotherapeutic strategies can however, help individuals manage their anger at home, at work
and in the society in three main ways:
(i)
Mind Relaxation- Psychologists train clients using a technique called progressive relaxation until
such clients are able to fully relax their minds by way of controlling their temper.
(ii)
Cognitive therapy- Often the way people think when they are angry makes situations worse. In
cognitive therapy, psychologists help patients find alternative ways of positively thinking about and
reacting to anger instead of thinking bad about the person or situation.
(iii)
Skill development- Learning new behaviours can also help. Parents might learn different ways of less
harshly communicating with their children and Managers of organizations learning new and different
ways of communicating with their subordinates and colleagues. In order to modify the anger behaviour
more effectively, combining the three strategies is best.
REFERENCES
Allen, J.G. and Haccount, D.M. (2010). Sex differences in emotionality: A multidimensional approach. Human
Relations, 29, 711-722.
Averill, J.R. (1982). Studies on anger and aggression: Implication for the theories of emotion. American
Psychologist, 38, 1145-1160.
Beck, A.T. and Weisher, M. (2007). Cognitive Behavioural Theory: In R.J Corsini & D. Wedding (Eds.), Current
psychotherapies, Itasca: F.E. Peace cock Publishers.
Bonigk, M. and Steffgen, G. (2013). Effects of habitual anger on employees behaviour during organizational
change. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10 (12), 6215-6234.
Bowlby, B.W. (1973). Experience and expression of anger among the genders. Journal of Narrative and Life
History, 1, 325-341.
Brody, L.R. (1993). On understanding gender differences in the expression of emotion. Gender roles, socialization,
and language. In S. Ablon, D. Brown, E. Khantzian, and J. Mack (Eds.), Human feelings, explorations in affect
development and meaning (87-121), New York, Analytic Press.
Brody, L.R., Lovas, G.S. and Hay, D.H. (1995). Gender differences in anger and fear as a function of situational
context. Sex Roles, 32, 47-78.
Buss, D.M. (1989). Conflict between the sexes: Strategic interference and the evocation of anger and upset. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 735-747.
Campbell, A. and Muncer, S. (1987). Models of anger and aggression in the social talk of women and men. Journal
for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 17, 498-511.

All rights reserved

This work by Wilolud Journals is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

Mwantu et al.,: Continental J. Arts and Humanities 7 (1): 1 - 10, 2015

Cox, D.L., Stabb, S.D., and Hulgus, J.F. (2000). Anger and depression in girls and boys: A study of gender
differences. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 110-112.
Defoore, D.F. (2006). Understanding the external expression of anger, body language, physiological responses, and
its times in public act of aggression. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
DiGiuseppe, R. and Tafrate, R.C. (2003). The anger disorder Scale Manual. Toronto; Multi-Health Systems.
Dittmann, M. (2003). Anger across the gender divide. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34 (3), 52.
Eagly, A.H. and Steff, V. (1986). Gender and aggressive behaviour: A meta-analytic review of the social
psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 3-22.
Ekman, P. (1994). Strong evidence for universality in facial expression: A reply to Russell's mistaken critique.
Psychological Bulletin, 115, 268-287.
Faber, S.D. and Burns, J.W. (1996). Anger management style, degree of expressed anger, and gender influence.
Cardiovascular recovery from interpersonal harassment. Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 19, 31-53.
Frijda, N. (2010). Universal antecedents exist and are interesting. In P.E. Kman and R.J Davidson (Eds). The nature
of emotion: Fundamental questions (PP155-162). New York, Oxford University Press.
Frodi, A. (1977). Sex differences in the perception of a provocation: A survey of perceptual and motor skills.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44,113-114.
Gibson, D.E and Callister, R.R (2010). Anger in organizations. Doi:10.1177/01492006369348060, 36,66-93.
Gottmann, M. and Natavous, B. (1993). Linkages between anger repertoire and marital functioning pro-relationship
interactional style. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 268-287.
Harris, M.B. (1993). How provoking! What makes men and women angry? Aggressive Behaviour, 19, 199-211.
Kring, A.M. and Gordon, A.H. (1998). Sex differences in emotions: Expression, experience, and physiology.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 686-703.
Kring, A.M. (2000). Gender and anger. In A.H. Fischer (Ed) Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspective
(PP 211-231), New York, Cambridge University Press.
Mesquite, B. and Frijda, N.H. (1992). Cultural variations in emotions: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 179204.
Miron-Spektor, E. and Rafaeli, A.(2009). The effects of anger in the workplace: When, Where, and Why observing
anger enhances or hinders performance. In J.J. Martocchia and H. Liao (eds.), Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, Volume 28, (pp153-178), Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Miron-Spektor, E., Efrat-Treister, D., Rafeali, A. and Schwarz-Cohen, O. (2011). Others anger makes people work
harder not smarter: The effect of observing anger and sarcasm on creative and analytic thinking. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96 (5), 1065-1075.

All rights reserved

This work by Wilolud Journals is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

Mwantu et al.,: Continental J. Arts and Humanities 7 (1): 1 - 10, 2015

Mwantu, E.N., Kazi, T.T., Damilep, J.Z. and Mwanti, B.Y. (2014). Influence of psychological divorce among
parents on childrens psycho-emotional well-being. Nigerian Journal of Applied Behavioural Sciences, 2, 158-164.
Tavris, C. (2003). Anger: The misunderstood emotion. New York. Simon and Schuster.
Thomas, S.P. (1989). Gender differences in anger expression: Health implications. Research in Nursing and Health,
12, 389-398.
Thomas, S.P. (1993). Women and anger. New York: Springer.
Saposnek, D.T. and Chip, R.J.T. (2004). The psychology of divorce. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sher, B.(2011). Work environment, creativity and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1165-1173.
Snell, W.E. Jr, Gum, S.,Shuck, R.L., Mosley, J.A., and Hite,T.L. (1995). The Clinical Anger Scale: Preliminary
reliability and validity. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 215-226.
Wach, K.T. (1950). How does anger work inside the body emotions? New York: The Guiliford Press.

All rights reserved

This work by Wilolud Journals is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

10