This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Smedslund, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

How Shall the Concept of Anger be Defined?

University Of Oslo

Six positions are described on the question of whether psychological concepts can and should be defined. Anger is defined as follows: `P in C at t is angry at Q' = df 'P in C at t believes that at least one person whom P in C at t cares for has, intentionally or through neglect, been treated without respect by Q, and P has not forgiven Q.' The definition belongs to the system of psychologic (PL), in which the other concepts in the definition are also defined. The definition of anger is evaluated through the plausibility of its implications, and the plausibility of the explanations of apparent contrary cases. Three explanations are presented to account for cases which appear not to fit the definition. These are: stronger other concerns; the personification of non-persons and depersonification of persons; and a variation in the subjective standards of what constitutes respect and disrespect, both between persons and between situations (degree of frustration). The ultimate test of the definition lies in its general utility as part of the system of PL.

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 1, 5-33 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354393031001


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Smedslund Psycho-Logic: A 'Conceptual Toolbox' and 'Mind Sharpener' for Health Psychologists: A Response to Commentaries J Health Psychol, March 1, 2000; 5(2): 165 - 171. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. J. Stam Ten Years after, Decade to Come: The Contributions of Theory to Psychology Theory Psychology, February 1, 2000; 10(1): 5 - 21. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Spicer and K. Chamberlain Developing Psychosocial Theory in Health Psychology: Problems and Prospects J Health Psychol, April 1, 1996; 1(2): 161 - 171. [Abstract]