Dual Emotional Instigators: Anger and Depression

Anger

Anger is common. Many people respond to anger impulsively, probably with direct fighting tactics of hostility (e.g., a hostile question, a threat, using intimida­tion; see Table 2.1).

In a review ofthe research, Canary, Spitzberg, and Semic (1998) identify other causes of anger:

• identity management: a person questions your integrity explicitly or implicitly;

• aggression: someone behaves with hostility toward you or someone else;

• frustration: someone frustrates you;

• lack of fairness: you believe that you are not treated in a fair manner;

• incompetence: a person you depend on cannot perform his or her job;

• relationship threat: you perceive a third party trying to interfere with your close relationship(s);

• predisposition: the reliance on aggression as a modus operandi—the predominant strategy for managing conflict.

• general reaction: someone mindlessly responds to a situation aggressively.

A plurality ofresearchers have investigated how challenges to one’s identity can anger people. People commonly become angry, and even deadly, when someone questions their identity. Indeed, several researchers have argued that threats to one’s identity leads to physical and psychological aggression (e.g., Schonbach, 1990; Spitzberg, 2010). Also, identity management can be central to training people how to manage conflict in the workplace (e.g., Jones & Brinkert, 2008, offer training strategies for identity management).

Expression of anger through direct fighting does not help people to vent their anger and become calm (Canary et al., 1998). Rather, direct fighting tactics often make the anger worse by prompting a reciprocation of direct and indirect fighting (Canary et al., 1998).

Conclusion 4.4: Causes of anger vary and indictment of a person's identity manage­ment can be the most severe.

Suggestion 4.5: Be mindful that causes of anger vary and can have negative implica­tions for a person's identity management.

Strategies to Manage Anger

People’s strategic communication in response to anger varies. Using the dimen­sions of threat and directness, Guerrero (1994) identified four general strategic responses to emotions: distributive-aggression behaviors include tactics that are both direct and threatening. Integrative-assertive references behaviors that are direct and non-threatening; these behaviors focus on the needs of the other person and are constructive. Passive-aggression uses indirect but still threatening behaviors; people are unwilling or unable to express their strong negative feelings but do so in such a way that they cannot be reproached. Finally, Nonassertive-Denial refers to indi­rect behaviors that are non-threatening and even self-protective. Of course, these strategies coincide with those presented in Chapter 2 and are useful for thinking how to act in response to emotions.

Guerrero, Farinelli, and McEwan (2008) found, for example, that people who are treated fairly are more likely to rely on integrative-assertion in response to relationship conflict. People who are treated unfairly rely more on distributive­aggression tactics.

Without using mindfulness, people can escalate from anger to rage (Retsinger, 1991), emotional flooding (Gottman, 1994), and increased negative arousal and excitement (Zillman, 1988, 1990). Zillman (1990) argues that our arousal levels reach a point where anger short-circuits rational thinking. That is, the portion of our brains that provide “executive functions” (i.e., the frontal cortex) is over­ridden by mere impulses to respond in anger. Such impulsive responses to anger typically produce intense direct fighting tactics that lead to more intense anger (Martin, Anderson, & Horvath, 1996). However, people who possess knowledge about anger and its expression can decide on a strategy and tactics to manage anger more effectively (Stern, 1999).

Responsible expression of emotion (especially anger) provides several bene­fits. Responsible expression provides feedback about our emotions and allows us to relieve inner tension and to avoid negative secondary emotions such as depression. Our expression of emotion also tells other people that something has happened that we care about; we express our needs and can interact more effectively with others (Mongrain & Vettese, 2003). Expressing anger through assertive-integrative behaviors increases relationship satisfaction and perceptions of communication competence (Guerrero, 1994). Using distributive-aggression (direct fighting) tactics can even help the other person look better, although everyone involved might know that the other person is clearly wrong.

Conclusion 4.5: People who act impulsively in anger and use direct fighting tactics reduce their episodic control and will likely regret their behavior.

Suggestion 4.6: At the onset of anger, pause for a moment to respond mindfully, and then select a communication strategy that addresses your source of anger.

Another way to manage anger is to control your paralanguage—especially the rate and volume of speech.

Consider how airline pilots communicate to passengers when the plane is approaching turbulence. Airline pilots do not scream, “People, I cannot believe what I am seeing! You had better get back to your seats! Oh yeah, and make sure you are buckled up... God, that storm is big!” Can you imagine the panic that would follow such a message? Instead, airline pilots are trained to convey a sense that all is right in the sky, and they communicate in low tones and in a calm, slow manner: “Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to hit a few bumps. So, I am turn­ing on the seatbelt sign and am asking you to return to your seat. Sorry for the inconvenience, but we should be through this in a few minutes.”

Neither total suppression nor unrestrained expression of anger at the other person reflects a smart strategic approach. Averill (1993) advised that people have a right to express their anger when they are faced with intentional hurtful actions or unintentional ones that can be corrected. Tavris (1989) and Averill (1993) agree that your anger should be directed at the source of your anger; that the response to anger should not be over-reactive, and that you should not take your anger out on a third party.

Sometimes, the only way to avoid aggression is for parties to stop their conflict interaction temporarily with a period of silence and/or for them to physically leave the conflict site. Providing breaks in conflict interaction can help people gain episodic control. Both actions allow people time to cool off and calm down (but it does not work for everyone).

If the other person exhibits strong negative arousal, it is counter-productive to confront the person at that time. That person is probably too defensive and his/ her emotional responses have already risen above their usual level of containment (Donohue & Kolt, 1992). Ifpeople become highly aroused or excited, they expe­rience cognitive deficits in their brains’ executive functions. They cannot process rational argument at that point (Zillman, 1993). Again, for episodic control, it might be smart to disengage for a period of time; you yield only temporarily, fully intending to continue the discussion when the person has calmed down and can function normally. The above material leads us to suggest:

Conclusion 4.6: Be mindful that anger can short-circuit the brain’s executive func­tions and lead to impulsive, self-destructive behavior.

Suggestion 4.7: To maintain episodic control, speak softly and slowly when angry.

Suggestion 4.8: Express anger at the person who instigated that anger in proportion to the action that led to your anger (do not overreact).

Suggestion 4.9: Avoid conflict (or insert breaks) when anger has overridden either person’s ability to engage in mindful strategic communication.

Depression

Approximately 10% of the U.S. population suffers from depression in any given year (Duggan, 2007). General symptoms of depression include self-devaluation, sadness, weight loss, lack of sleep, fatigue, feelings ofworthlessness, general nega­tivity, negativity toward the partner, inappropriate disclosures, and so on (Dug­gan, 2007; Segrin, 1990). In brief, depressed people suffer from deficits in their self-esteem and social skills that manifest in overall negativity and incompetent conflict strategies and tactics.

Being in a relationship involving a depressed person entails less satisfaction and more anger/resentment than being in a normative relationship (e.g., Hinchliffe, Hooper, & Roberts, 1978). Moreover, depressed people engage in more rumi­nating thoughts than most people, with increased rumination leading to increased depression, and more negativity toward the problem being ruminated. That depression challenges people to gain episodic control appears obvious. However, how one attains episodic control does not easily address the challenge, because people in depressed relationships likely experience dilemmas regarding how to manage depression.

According to Inconsistent Nurturing Control (Duggan & LaPoire, 2006) the partners of depressed people want to nurture the partner and control the path of depression so the partner gets well. Yet these objectives are inconsistent because the partner wants the depressed person to remain dependent for affection but yearns for times when the depressed person is happy. The depressed person mean­while enjoys the benefits that come with partner nurturing but wants to live in a

more rewarding emotional state (Duggan, 2007). Given these inconsistent desires, repeated cycles of nurturing and control occur where each partner relies on tac­tics that reflect these incompatible goals. Clearly, depression confounds efforts at episodic control through a complex interplay of mixed intentions.

Obviously, depression has a major role in conflict management. Segrin (1990) noted that depressed people in general engage in more direct fighting and less negotiation, as one might expect. One study illustrates the kind of findings in the research: Henne, Buysse, and Van Oost (2007) reported that

couples with a depressed [partner] report significantly higher levels of depressive symptoms, ambivalent and avoidant attachment, man-demand/ woman-withdraw and woman-demand/man-withdraw interactions, mutual avoidance and causal attributions, and lower levels of marital adjustment and constructive communication, independent of whether the individuals are [depressed] or partners [of depressed people], and male or female... (p. 503)

Also, sex differences occur in how people respond to depression and that specific conflict tactics connect with both husband and wife depression. For example, Du Rocher Schudlich, Papp, and Cummings (2004) found that dysphoria (minor expe­riences of depression) brought about more use of both partners’ angry and depress­ing messages; and the wife’s depression brought about more use of depressing mes­sages. “These particularly harmful strategies included verbal hostility, defensiveness, withdrawal, and insults, as well as more displays of negative affect (anger and sad­ness)” (Du Rocher Schudlich et al., p. 180). These findings regarding changes in one’s depression were discovered after levels of marital satisfaction and the partner’s depression levels were controlled. Such findings despite controls indicate that the link between one person’s depression and couple conflict behaviors are clear and “not simply an artifact of co-occurring marital satisfaction” (p. 180).

Although female depression is more common than male depression, it appears that male depression might create more damage. Du Rocher Schudlich et al. found that depression in the husband had greater influence on conflict messages than did that of the wife. The larger effect for husband depression occurred in conflicts about minor issues as well as major issues. In a different study involving depressed husbands and wives, Proulx, Buehler, and Helms (2009) found that the husband’s general hostility toward his wife substantially increased the wife’s symptoms of depression. However, hostility in the wife did not significantly affect the husband’s depressive symptoms. Further analyses found that both partners’ warm behaviors change the negative effect of hostility on the wife’s depression.

Managing Depression

How people maintain or retrieve episodic control in a depressive relationship ini­tially appears a daunting task. However, Segrin’s “social skills deficit vulnerability model” provides a few suggests. In a word, he argues that people become depressed when they lack social skills and must face stressful events alone. Depressed people lack the social support and resources that their counterparts enjoy. In such stress­ful circumstances then, depressed people fail and receive confirmation that they cannot perform and are not worthy. As Segrin noted, “It is, therefore, the com­bination of poor social skills and negative life events that are thought to produce depressive distress” (pp. 394—5).

The social skills deficit vulnerability model suggests that they and their part­ners should seek control over situations that are stressful. Knowing that depressed people are particularly vulnerable during stressful times might suggest that stressful periods require more support and assurance from partners than in other periods. This is at least one potential strategy for gaining and maintaining episodic control.

In terms of relational quality, it appears that reframing the issue can change the ability of one to achieve episodic control. Henne et al. (2007) found that the link between depression and marital quality depended on how people explained the cause of their conflicts. If the conflicts were seen as temporary and no one’s fault, then marital adjustment was higher than if the partner or self caused the conflict. As Henne et al. concluded, “the association between depressive symptoms and marital adjustment is conditional on the values of causal attributions” (Henne et al., 2007, p. 505). Given this research on depression and conflict, the following conclusions and strategies are offered:

Conclusion 4.7: Depression is an ongoing, sad, self-defeating, and negative expe­rience that is often reflected in a deficit of social skills, hostile conflict, and reduced relational quality.

Conclusion 4.8: Helping depressed people is difficult given an inconsistency of nur­turing and controlling motives for relational partners and the negative attributions that depressed people often entertain.

Suggestion 4.10: Provide social support to depressed people, especially when they face stressful situations (such as conflict).

Suggestion 4.11: Help depressed people see alternative attributions to their conflicts, when they attempt to hold someone at fault or view the problem as stable over time.