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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abelson, R. (1967). Definition. In P. Edwards (Ed.), The encyclopedia of philosophy (Vol. 2, pp. 314-324). New York: Macmillan.
2.
Averill, J.R. (1983). Studies on anger and aggression: Implications for theories of emotion. American Psychologist, 38, 1145-1160.
3.
Brown, R. , & Fish, D. (1983). The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition, 14, 237-273.
4.
Churchland, P.M. (1984). Matter and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
Dembo, T. (1931). Der Arger als dynamisches Problem. Psychologische Forschung, 15, 1-144.
6.
Dembo, T. (1976). The dynamics of anger. In J. de Rivera (Ed.), Field theory as human science (pp. 324-422). New York: Gardner Press.
7.
de Rivera, J. (1976). A structural theory of the emotions. New York: International Universities Press.
8.
de Rivera, J. (1981). The structure of anger. In J. de Rivera (Ed.), Conceptual encounter: A method for the exploration of human experience (pp. 35-81). Washington, DC: University Press of America.
9.
Fehr, B. , & Russell, J.A. (1984). Concept of emotion viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 464-486.
10.
Gallie, W.B. (1955-1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167-198.
11.
Goddard, C. (1989). Review of Zoltan Kovecses, Metaphors of anger, pride and love: A lexical approach to the structure of concepts. Lingua, 77, 90-98.
12.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
13.
Hilbert, D. (1902). The foundations of geometry. Chicago, IL: Open Court. (Original work published 1899.)
14.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15.
Lutz, C. (1990). Morality, domination and understandings of `justifiable anger' among the Ifaluk. In K.J. Gergen & G.R. Semin (Eds.), Everyday understanding: Social and scientific implications (pp. 204-226). London: Sage.
16.
Medin, D. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist, 44, 1469-1481.
17.
Mees, V. (1992). Psychologie des Argers. Gottingen: Hogrefe.
18.
Mummendey, A. (1988). Aggressive behavior. In M. Hewstone, W. Stroebe, J.-P. Codol, & G.M. Stephenson (Eds.), Introduction to social psychology (pp. 263-287). Oxford: Blackwell.
19.
Ortony, A. , Clore, G.L., & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of the emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Rubin, J. (1986). The emotion of anger: Some conceptual and theoretical issues. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17, 115-124.
21.
Shaver, P. , Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O'Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1061-1086.
22.
Shotter, J. (in press). Illusion and contest in `social scientific' understanding: The scope and limits of Jan Smedslund's geometry of common sense. In J. Siegfried (Ed.), The status of common sense in psychology. New York: Ablex.
23.
Smedslund, J. (1982). Revising explications of common sense through dialogue: Thirty-six psychological theorems. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23, 299-305.
24.
Smedslund, J. (1984). What is necessarily true in psychology?Annals of Theoretical Psychology, 2, 241-303.
25.
Smedslund, J. (1986). The explication of psychological common sense: Implications for the science of psychology. In R. Barcan Marcuset al. (Eds.), Logic, methodology and philosophy of science (Vol. 7, pp. 481-494). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
26.
Smedslund, J. (1988). Psycho-Logic. Heidelberg & New York: Springer.
27.
Smedslund, J. (1990). Psychology and psychologic: Characterization of the difference. In K.J. Gergen & G. Semin (Eds.), Everyday understanding: Social and scientific implications (pp. 45-63). London: Sage.
28.
Smedslund, J. (1991a). The psychologic of forgiving. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 32, 164-176.
29.
Smedslund, J. (1991b). The pseudoempirical in psychology and the case for psychologic. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 325-338.
30.
Smith, E.E. , Medin, D.L., & Rips, L.J. (1984). A psychological approach to concepts: Comments on Rey's `Concepts and stereotypes'. Cognition, 17, 265-274.
31.
Solomon, R.C. (1977). The passions: The myth and nature of human emotion. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
32.
Solomon, R.C. (1984). Getting angry: The Jamesian theory of emotion in anthropology. In R.A. Shweder & R.A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion (pp. 238-254). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Vollmer, F. (1990). Essays in theoretical psychology (pp. 96-109). Oslo: Solum.
34.
Wierzbicka, A. (1972). Semantic primitives. Frankfurt: Atheneum Verlag.
35.
Wierzbicka, A. (1980). Lingua Mentalis. Sydney: Academic Press.
