Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply



Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine, Technology

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. The Japanese Journal of Psychology 1985, Vol. 56, No. 4, 200-207 Œ´ ’˜“{ ‚è ‚Ì “® ‹@ ‚» ‚Ì • ‘¢ ‚Æ—vˆö ‹y ‚Ñ ”½ ‰ž ‚Æ‚Ì ŠÖŒW‘å •ã ‹³ ˆç ‘å Šw ‘å Ÿº Œ› ˆê •E•¬ ‘q •¶ ’m ’jMotives of anger: Their structure, factors, andrelationships with responsesKenichi Ohbuchi and Sachio Ogura (Department of Psychology, Faculty ofEducation, Osaka University of Education, Tennoji-ku, Osaka 543) We administered Averills questionnaire on "the everyday experience of anger" to 123 adultsand 130 university students who lived in Osaka, Japan. They were asked to rate their recentanger episodes in terms of the instigator, motive, response, etc. It was found that (1) therewere two factor dimensions in the motives of anger which were interpreted as hostile and instrumental motives; (2) hostile anger was more aroused when the instigators were not so familiarto them and had authority over them, while instrumental anger was more aroused when theinstigators were their loved ones or friends; (3) hostile anger, compared with instrumental,was intensified principally when the subjects perceived their instigators had malicious intentand (4) the subjects who felt hostile anger, compared with instrumental, were likely to wishto commit aggression against their instigators.Key words: anger episode, hostile anger, instrumental anger, aggression, perception of intent, interpersonal relations. Lazamus (1968)‚âAvemill (1982)‚Í •î •• ‚ð ”½‰žÇŒó • •… ‚Ì ‚Ð‚Æ •€ ‚‚ł ‚é“® ‚ɂ‚¢ ‚Ä,‚» ‚Ì • ‘¢ ‚Æ ˆö ‹y ‚Ñ ‹@ —vŒQ(mesponse syndmonle)‚Æ ‚Ý‚È‚· •l ‚¦ •û ‚ð ’ñ •¥ ‚µ‚Ä‚¢ ”½‰ž‚Æ ŠÖ ‚𠌟 ‚Ì ŒW “¢‚· ‚é.‚é.•î •• ‚É‚¨ ‚¢ ‚Ä‚Í,”F ’m,“® ‹@‚¯,•¶ —•,• •o ‚È ‚Ç “{ ‚è‚Ì “® ‚ɂ‚¢ ‚Ä ‚Í ‚Ó‚½‚Â‚Ì –â‘è ’ñ ‹N ‚Ì Žd•û ‚ª ‚ ‹@—l•X‚Ì •… ‚É‚¨ ‚¢ ‚Ä—l•X‚Ì •Ç•ó(”½ ‰ž)‚ª ‹N ‚± ‚è,Še •… •€ ‚é.•g ‚» ‚Ì •l ‚Í ‰½ Ì ‚Á‚½ ‚©?•h ‚Æ •g ‚è ‚É ‚æ‚Á‚Ä, Œ “{ ‚Ì “{•€ ‚Å‚Ì •Ç•ó ŠÔ‚ɃV ƒeƒ}ƒe ƒBƒbƒN ƒX ‚ÈŠÖ˜A‚ª ‚ ‚é ‚± ‚Æ ‚æ ‚É ‚» ‚Ì •l ‚Ì ‚Ç ‚È•s “® “® ‚¯ ‚ç‚ê ‚½‚Ì ‚©?•h ‚Å‚ ‚é. ‚ñ ‚ª ‹@ ‚Á‚Ä‚Ð‚Æ ‚Â‚Ì •î •• ‘Ì Œ± •¬—§· ‚é ‚Æ ‚ª ‚ ‚Ý‚È‚³ ‚ê ‚é.‰ä •X‚Í –{•e ‚Å‚Í Œã ‚ª “{ ‚è‚Ì “® ŽÒ ‹@‚É‚ ‚½‚é ‚à‚Ì ‚Æ‚µ,‘O ŽÒ “{ ‚Í ‚±‚Ì •l ‚¦ •û ‚ðŠî –{ ‚É,“{ ‚è‚Æ ‚¤•î •• ‚Ì •ª •Í ‚ðŽŽ‚Ý‚Ä‚¢ ‚¢ ‚è‚Ì Œ´ˆö ‚Æ ‚µ‚Ä‹æ•Ê ‚µ‚½‚¢.‚é ‚ª,‚± ‚Ì ‚悤‚ÉŒ© ‚Æ,“{ ‚è‚ð•] —ˆ ‚悤‚É•UŒ‚ “® ‚é ‚Ì •s ŽŸ ‚É‰ä •X‚Í,“{ ‚è‚Ì “® ‹@‚Æ ”½‰ž —•_ “I ŠÖ ‚ɂ‚¢ ‚Ä ‚Ì ˜ ŒW‚Æ ŠÖ ‚Ì ˜A‚Å‚Ì ‚݈ʒu ‚¯ ‚é ‚¾‚¯ ‚Å‚Í ‘S ‚-•s • •ª ‚Å‚ ‚é ‚± ‘½ ˜_ ‚¶‚Ä‚¨ ‚« ‚½‚¢.“{ ‚肪 ‰½ •- ‚ç‚©‚Ì •s “® ”½‰žð “® ‹@ ‚ ‚Ã‚Æ •ª ‚©‚Á‚Ä‚«‚½.“{ ‚è‚Æ ‚ª •UŒ‚ Œ‹‚т‚«‚ª ‹- ‚- ˆó •Û‚à ‚Ì ‚¯ ‚é‰ßö ‚É‚¨ ‚¢ ‚Ä, 3’i ŠK ’ ‚ð‹æ•Ê‚· ‚é ‚Ì ‚ª “K“– ‚Æ Žv‚í ‚ê‚¯ ‚ç‚ê ‚Ä‚¢ ‚é ‚Æ ‚±‚ë ‚©‚ç,•] —ˆ,“{ ‚è‚Í •UŒ‚ ˆö ‚Æ “® ‚µ‚Ä ‚é.‚½ ‚Æ ‚Î,“{ ‚è‚É ‚æ‚Á‚Ä•UŒ‚ “® “® ‚¯ ‚ç‚ê ‚é ‚¦ •s ‚ª ‹@‚Ì –ðŠ„ ‚µ‚©—^ ‚ç‚ê ‚Ä ‚±‚È‚©‚Á‚½.“{ ‚è‚Í Š´.‚¶ ‚ç‚ê ‚½ ‚¦ Žž,‘æ1’i ŠK ‚» ‚Ì •s “®‚É ‚æ‚Á‚Č ‚ª ‰½ ‚Í •l ‚ð’B•¬ ‚µ ‚悤•UŒ‚ •Õ“®‚Å‚ ‚é ‚Æ ‚©,‚ ‚é‚¢ ‚Í,“{ ‚肪 ‹- ‚¯ ‚ê ‚Î •UŒ‚ ”½ ‚Æ ‚µ‚Ä‚¢ ‚é ‚Ì ‚©,‘¦ ‚¿,”½ ‰ž –Ú ‚Ì •W‚Å‚ ‚é.•U Œ‚ “®‚¾ •s‰žª ‹- ‚-‚È ‚é ‚Æ ‚¤’P •ƒ ‚ȉ¼ ‚ª ‘å •” •ª ‚Ì •UŒ‚ ‹† ‚É‚¨ ‚ ‚¢ ’è Œ¤ ‚©‚ç ‚Æ ‚Á‚Ä•K‚¸ ‚µ ‚à‘Š Žè‚ð•• ‚‚¯ ‚é ‚± ‚Æ –Ú ‚¢ ‚ð •W‚É ‚µ‚Ä‚¢ ‚Ä‚Æ‚ç‚ê ‚Ä‚«‚½ ‚Ì ‚Å ‚ ‚é(‚½ ‚Æ ‚Î, Bemkowitz, ‚¦ ‚¢ ‚é ‚Æ ŒÀ ‚Í ‚ç‚È‚¢.‹à ‘K‚â –¼ ‚È ‚Ç•Ê‚Ì ‰½ —_ ‚©‚ðŽè‚É“ü‚ê1962).—~ ‹• •s –ž ‚Æ•UŒ‚ ŠÖ ‚Ì ‚æ ‚¤‚É,“{ ‚Ì ŒW ‚è‚Æ•UŒ‚ ‚Ì ‚é ‚± ‚Æ –Ú ‚ª •W‚Å‚ ‚é ‚± ‚Æ •- ‚È ‚- ‚È‚¢(Rule, 1978). ‚àŠÖ ‚ª ‚à ‚Á‚Æ “î ‚É•l ‚¦ ‚ç‚ê ‚é ‚æ ‚¤‚É‚È ‚Á‚½‚Ì ‚Í ‚² ‚-•Å ŒW •_ ‚Ü‚½,‚» ‚Ì Žž‚Ì –Ú ‚É ‚æ‚Á‚Ä‚Í,•U Œ‚ •W ˆÈŠO Žè’i ‚ª •Ì ‚ç ‚Ì‹ß ‚Å‚ ‚é(Avemill, 1978).•U Œ‚ “®‚Í ‚Þ ‚µ‚ë“{ ‚è‚Ì Œo •s ‚ê ‚é ‚± ‚Æ‚à“–‘R‚ ‚ë ‚¤.‘æ2’i ŠK‚Í,‹ï ‘Ì “I ‚È•s “® Œv ‚ÌŒ± ‚É‚¨ ‚¢ ‚Ä‹N‚± ‚é•Ç•ó ‚Ì ‚Ð‚Æ ‚Æ ‚ ‚Ý‚È‚· ‚× ‚« ‚Å‚ ‚ë ‚¤. ‰æ ‚é‚¢ ‚Í Šè–] ‚Å‚ ‚é.‘¦ ‚¿,‘Š Žè‚ð ‚È ‚®‚Á‚Ă⠂肽‚¢ ‚‚»‚ê ‚ð ŠÜ‚ß ‚Ä,“{ ‚è‚Ì Œo ‚Ì Še•… ‚Å•¶ ‚¸ ‚é—l•X‚Ì •Ç•ó Œ± •€ ‚Æ‚©•R‹c ‚µ‚½‚¢ ‚Æ ‚¤’i ŠK Žv ‚Å‚ ‚é.•Å Œã ’i ŠK ‚» ‚Ì •s ‚Ì ‚ÍŠÔ ŠÖ ‚Ì ˜A‚𠕪 •Í ‚µ,“{ ‚è‚Ì Œo ‚Ì • ‘¢ ‚ð’T ‚é ‚± ‚Æ •d —v Œ± ‚ª “®‚Ì ŽÀ ‚Å‚ ‚é.Še ’i ŠK ‚Å‚Í ŠO •ð Œ• ‚Ç‚ÉŠÖ ‚é”F •s ŠÔ •” ‚È ‚·‚Å‚Í ‚È‚¢‚© ‚Æ Žv‚í ‚ê ‚é.–{ •e ‚Å‚Í,“{ ‚è‚Ì Œo ‚Ì Žå—v Œ± ‚È ’m“I •ˆ —•ª ‚ ‚Á‚Ä,‘O ‚Ì ’i ŠK ‚çŒã ’i ŠK ‚ ‚© ‚Ì ‚Ö‚Ì ˆÚ•s ‚ª •§ 1 –{Œ¤ ‚Í •º ˜a58”N “x•¶ •” •È‰Èw ‹† ”ï(‰Û ‘è ”Ô•† ‹† Š Œ¤ Œä ‚ê ‚Ä‚¢ ‚é ‚à ‚Ì ‚Æ ‚¦ ‚ç‚ê ‚é.–{ •e ‚Å‚Í,‚± ‚Ì “® ‚à ‚³ •l ‹@5871065)‚Ì •• •¬‚ð Žó‚¯ ‚½Œ¤ ‚Ì ˆê •” ‚Å‚ ‚é. ‹† ‚¯ ‚Ì ‰ßö ‚Ì ‘æ1’i ŠK “{ ‚è‚Ì “®‹@‚Æ ‚Ñ,‘æ2’i ’ ‚ð ŒÄ ŠK Šè ‚Í
  • 2. Anderson, N. H. 1974 Cognitive algebra: Integra. tion theory applied to social attribution. In La Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social" psychology. Vol. 7. New York : Academic Press. Pp. 1-101.Averill, J. R. 1978 Anger. In H. Howe & R. Dienstbier (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Vol. 26. Lincoln: University o Nebraska Press. Pp. 1-80.Averill, J. R. 1982 Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.Berkowitz, L. 1962 Aggression: A social psycho logical analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.Feshbach, S. 1964 The function of aggression and the regulation of aggressive drive. Psychological Reaiew, 71, 257-272.Lazarus, R. S. 1968 Emotions and adaptation Conceptual and empirical relations. In W. J. Ar nord (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motiva tion. Vol. 16. Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press. Pp. 175-266.Ohbuchi, K. 1982 a Negativity bias: Its effects in attribution, hostility, and attack-instigated ag gression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 49-53.Ohbuchl, K. 1982 b On the cognitive integration mediating reactions to attack patterns. Social