Anger: Justified and Unjustified

The present research adopts a mixed-methods approach to examine the boundaries between two anger variants: an anger perceived as moral, appropriate, and justified; and an anger considered wrong and unjustified. In Study 1, we analyze participants’ narratives about their past experiences of justified and unjustified anger using qualitative thematic analysis, closed-vocabulary, and open-vocabulary text processing methods. In Study 2, we use a prototype approach to differentiate justified and unjustified anger experiences across ten theory-driven dimensions. The results reveal crucial differences in cognitive and emotional components, as well as interpersonal outcomes associated with these anger types. Participants often considered their anger to be justified when a target’s actions were perceived as immoral, unfair, harmful, or violating norms. They viewed the target’s behavior as reflecting poor moral character, expressed absolutist judgments in their writing, and experienced concurrent hostile emotions. In contrast, participants perceived their anger as unjustified when it stemmed from unrelated frustrations, misunderstandings, or overreactions to trivial offenses. Unjustified anger narratives were often reflective, and demonstrated retrospection and self-directed emotions (e.g., guilt and embarrassment). The two anger types varied considerably in their relational impact: Justified anger commonly led to strained or severed relationships, while unjustified anger prompted efforts to repair bonds. Additionally, justified anger had a stronger overlap with hate and contempt appraisals. We discuss the implications of these findings for constructing theories capable of explaining diverse anger experiences as well as developing interventions to address the maladaptive behaviors associated with anger.