Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHAY, GAIL SCHMOOKLER.
dc.creatorHAY, GAIL SCHMOOKLER.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-31T19:01:00Z
dc.date.available2011-10-31T19:01:00Z
dc.date.issued1985en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/188090
dc.description.abstractIn this study the controversial issue of whether to express or not to express anger was investigated. Three different approaches to dealing with anger in an experimental setting with couples were examined. The results support the notion presented by Holt (1970) and Deutsch (1969) that there may be constructive and destructive ways of dealing with anger in an interpersonal relationship, and argue against the conclusions of Berkowitz (1970) and Ellis, (1976) that the expression of anger is so dangerous that it should be avoided. Following role-play of vignettes of typical marital conflicts, subjects in one condition made I-Statements to their partners about their feelings, subjects in a second condition made You-Statements, and subjects in the No-Expression condition listened to a lecture. On outcome measures designed to tap anger, happiness, emotional closeness and distance from partner, liking for partner, other positive and negative feelings, and empathy for partner, I-Statement subjects consistently reported more positive change in their feelings than did You-Statement subjects, and rated their partners as having significantly more empathy in paraphrasing their positions, feelings, beliefs, and wishes. The No-Expression condition did not differ from the I-Statement on variables which measured feelings on anger, happiness, and other "good" and "bad" feelings. However, the No-Expression condition was more like the You-Statement condition in failing to decrease emotional distance or increase measures of empathy, agreement, and feeling understood. Neutral activity which involves time out from interaction with the partner may help to dissipate anger, but seems not to enhance "intimacy," as indicated by lack of change on the variables which involve mutuality and exchange. The I-Statement condition is viewed as superior to either the No-Expression condition or You-Statement condition in conflict resolution, as the I-Statement condition brings about both the dissipation of anger and the restoration of intimacy. It is concluded that there is no evidence from this study, which involves moderate emotional arousal, that avoiding expression of feeling in a conflict situation is superior to talking about the feelings engendered by the conflict. However, I-Statements lead to more constructive changes in feelings and in one's capacity to empathize than do You-Statements.
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.subjectMarital psychotherapy.en_US
dc.subjectCatharsis.en_US
dc.subjectAnger.en_US
dc.titleCATHARSIS IN PSYCHOTHERAPY: AN ANALOG STUDY WITH COUPLES (ANGER, EMOTIONS, COMMUNICATION).en_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeDissertation-Reproduction (electronic)en_US
dc.identifier.oclc697291299en_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
dc.identifier.proquest8603147en_US
thesis.degree.disciplinePsychologyen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.namePh.D.en_US
refterms.dateFOA2018-06-16T09:50:40Z
html.description.abstractIn this study the controversial issue of whether to express or not to express anger was investigated. Three different approaches to dealing with anger in an experimental setting with couples were examined. The results support the notion presented by Holt (1970) and Deutsch (1969) that there may be constructive and destructive ways of dealing with anger in an interpersonal relationship, and argue against the conclusions of Berkowitz (1970) and Ellis, (1976) that the expression of anger is so dangerous that it should be avoided. Following role-play of vignettes of typical marital conflicts, subjects in one condition made I-Statements to their partners about their feelings, subjects in a second condition made You-Statements, and subjects in the No-Expression condition listened to a lecture. On outcome measures designed to tap anger, happiness, emotional closeness and distance from partner, liking for partner, other positive and negative feelings, and empathy for partner, I-Statement subjects consistently reported more positive change in their feelings than did You-Statement subjects, and rated their partners as having significantly more empathy in paraphrasing their positions, feelings, beliefs, and wishes. The No-Expression condition did not differ from the I-Statement on variables which measured feelings on anger, happiness, and other "good" and "bad" feelings. However, the No-Expression condition was more like the You-Statement condition in failing to decrease emotional distance or increase measures of empathy, agreement, and feeling understood. Neutral activity which involves time out from interaction with the partner may help to dissipate anger, but seems not to enhance "intimacy," as indicated by lack of change on the variables which involve mutuality and exchange. The I-Statement condition is viewed as superior to either the No-Expression condition or You-Statement condition in conflict resolution, as the I-Statement condition brings about both the dissipation of anger and the restoration of intimacy. It is concluded that there is no evidence from this study, which involves moderate emotional arousal, that avoiding expression of feeling in a conflict situation is superior to talking about the feelings engendered by the conflict. However, I-Statements lead to more constructive changes in feelings and in one's capacity to empathize than do You-Statements.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
azu_td_8603147_sip1_m.pdf
Size:
2.107Mb
Format:
PDF
Description:
azu_td_8603147_sip1_m.pdf

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record