Age and Anger

Author(s): Scott Schieman

Source: Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Sep., 1999), pp. 273-289
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2676352
Accessed: 14-11-2018 03:49 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to Journal of Health and Social Behavior

This content downloaded from 129.100.255.35 on Wed, 14 Nov 2018 03:49:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Age and Anger*

SCOTT SCHIEMAN
University of Miami

Journal of Health and Social Behavior 1999, Vol 40 (September): 273-289

Are older people less angry? I propose that age differences in roles, personal
and social circumstances, the sense of control, health, and socio-emotional out-
look explain the association. I use data from a 1981 representative sample of
951 physically disabled individuals from Southwestern Ontario, Canada and a
1996 national probability sample of 1,450 US. respondents the General
Social Survey (GSS). Both surveys show a negative association between age
and anger In the Ontario sample older people are more likely to occupy widow-
hood and retirement roles, live with fewer people, have less interpersonal
estrangement, and have fewer life events; these characteristics explain their
lower anger Also, were it not for their lower control and worse health older
people in the Ontario sample would report even lower anger. In the GSS sam-
ple, age differences in household composition, satisfaction with family life and
financial circumstances, perceived time pressures in daily life, religious
involvement, and socio-emotional outlook contribute to the lower anger among
older adults. Collectively, my findings show that the psychosocial and structur-
al environment experienced differently by age influences the risk of anger

Are older adults less angry than younger
people? Current views of age and recent stud-
ies about anger provide a basis for believing
they are. For example, family and work roles
structure the opportunities for conflictual
social interaction (Ross and Drentea 1998;
Ross and Van Willigen 1996). In addition, age
differences in social roles, relationships, and
socio-emotional outlook may influence the
risk of angry emotionality (Neugarten 1996a,
1996b). Conversely, lower perceived control
and poorer health among older adults might
threaten identity, reduce the sense of compe-
tence, and increase powerlessness (Canary,
* This study was supported by a research grant and
a National Health Scientist Award from the
National Health Research and Development
Program (NHRDP) of Health Canada to Dr. R. Jay
Turner. The author would like to express sincere
thanks to Dr. Turner for permission to use these
data and his continued support. The author also
thanks George Wilson for his help with the GSS. I
am grateful to Karen Van Gundy, the reviewers,
and the editor for their helpful comments. Address
correspondence to: Scott Schieman, Department
of Sociology, University of Miami, P.O. Box
248162, Coral Gables, Florida 33124-2208;
schiemangumiami. ir miami. edu.
Spitzberg, and Semic 1998). In this paper, I
test two views. The first view is that age dif-
ferences in role statuses, social and personal
circumstances, and socio-emotional outlook
contribute to lower self-reported anger among
older people. The second view is that the fail-
ure to adjust for lower control and poorer
health among older people results in the under-
estimation of their anger levels.
Scholars from a diversity of fields-includ-
ing the sociology of mental health, emotions,
psychology, and communication-express the
need for increased study of anger (Guerrerro,
Anderson, and Trost 1998; Fischer 1996;
Smith-Lovin 1995; Aneshensel 1992;
Aneshensel, Rutter, and Lachenbruch 1991;
Thoits 1989, 1995). Moreover, life-course
researchers recognize the potential of age-
linked events, relationships, shifts in roles, and
expectations to influence emotionality
(Mirowsky 1998; Neugarten and Datan 1996;
Mirowsky and Ross 1992; Kemper 1990). In
the stress literature, several recent studies of
national surveys that examine anger as an out-
come of social disadvantage and inequality
document lower anger among older people
(Ross and Van Willigen 1996, 1997; Mirowsky

273

This content downloaded from 129.100.255.35 on Wed, 14 Nov 2018 03:49:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
274 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
and Ross 1995). My paper attempts to extend
work on this topic by examining the cross-
sectional association between age and anger
using data from a representative sample of
physically disabled individuals from
Southwestern Ontario, Canada and a national
probability U.S. sample-the General Social
Survey (GSS).
Conceptualization and Importance ofAnger
Anger is one of the most frequently experi-
enced emotions (Averill 1982), yet many
scholars continue to grapple with a precise
scientific definition of it (Canary et al. 1998;
Russell and Fehr 1994). Researchers generally
agree that anger is an uncomfortable and con-
flictual emotion (Power and Dalgleish 1997;
Steams and Stearns 1986) and an interperson-
al event that typically involves negative
appraisal of self or society (Smith-Lovin 1995;
Averill 1982; Tavris 1982). Recent research
shows that rage (outrage), irritation, exaspera-
tion, disgust, envy, and torment represent
anger (Canary et al. 1998). More specifically,
some researchers operationalize anger in terms
of feelings (e.g., annoyed and angry) and
behavioral expression (e.g., "yelling at some-
one") (Ross and Van Willigen 1996, 1997;
Mirowsky and Ross 1995). Like other emo-
tions (e.g., sadness), the experience of anger
has consequences for health and illness.
Suppressing or overexpressing anger and hos-
tility is associated with an array of problems
like cancer, asthma, ulcers, headaches, and
coronary heart disease (Tucker and Friedman
1996; Siegman 1994; Tavris 1982).
Why do people get angry? Researchers
investigating anger have compiled theory and
evidence about the causes or "sites of anger
provocation." These often involve social inter-
actions that evoke frustration of or threats to
identity, fairness in social exchanges and inter- steadily in the later years may be related to the
actions, personal competence, and intimate
relationships (Canary et al. 1998; Power and
Dalgleish 1997; Fischer 1996; Jenkins and
Oatley 1996). I argue that age differences in
anger are attributable to the way age structurestion from work and family roles in later life.
exposure to, and experience of, the sites of
anger provocation. That is, the psychosocial
and social-structural environment-experi-
enced differently by younger and older
adults-influences the risk of angry emotional
outcomes.
This content downloaded from 129.100.255.35 on Wed, 14 Nov 2018 03:49:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Roles and Social Circumstances
Do work and family life expose people to
the sites of anger provocation? There is little
question that these domains provide many pos-
itive emotional experiences. Paradoxically,
however, the potential for negative emotional
experiences may also be greater. Work-related
difficulties (Ross and Van Willigen 1997;
Houston and Kelly 1989) and intimate partner-
ships (Horwitz, McLaughlin, and White 1998;
Simon 1998; Jenkins and Oatley 1996) are
among the most common sources of frustra-
tion and anger. In addition, equity theory sug-
gests that people will get angry when they give
more than they get in return. For many indi-
viduals, marriage represents "the highest emo-
tional highs and the lowest emotional lows
experienced in adult life" (Carstensen et al.
1996:233). Taken together, work and family
domains provide opportunities for dissatisfac-
tions, inequities, unreasonable demands, time
pressures, and negative emotional exchanges
(Ross and Van Willigen 1996; Smith-Lovin
1995; Kemper 1993).
Across the life course, people experience
age-related shifts in work and family roles. By
extension, the sites of anger provocation
embedded within work and family roles may
also be patterned by age (Lazarus 1996). For
example, disengagement theory predicts that
adults lose roles, are released from societal
expectations, and feel less competitive in late-
life (Cumming and Henry 1961). Retirement
may liberate some people from alienating
work, stressful challenges, work-family con-
flict, and frustrating interactions with employ-
ers or coworkers at the same time that it
gives them more time and energy to engage in
leisure activities (Morgan and Kunkel 1998;
Ross and Drenta 1998). The fact that marital
quality rises during the first few years of mar-
riage, declines until midlife, and then rises
rise and fall of role-related responsibilities,
stressors, and time pressures (Orbuch et al.
1996). In sum, I assert that the age patterns in
anger are partly attributable to greater libera-
Marital and work status, however, probably
explain only a limited part of the total associa-
tion between age and anger. Thus, a more
detailed analysis of the conflictual potential of
social and personal circumstances may expli-
cate the conditions that elicit affective respons-
 AGE AND ANGER 275

es within daily life (Thoits 1995). Although
conflict over the amount of time and energy
afforded to work and family obligations may
increase anger (Horwitz et al. 1998; Simon
1998; Ross and Van Willigen 1996), the posi-
tive qualities of interpersonal relationships-
like commitment, caring, and aid are likely
to reduce it (Ross and Van Willigen 1997). In
addition, economic hardship may aggravate
strains, thwart goals, elevate a sense of power-
lessness, and increase conflict between work
and family roles (Mirowsky and Ross 1989;
Ross and Huber 1985). By extension, research
shows that financial strains and dissatisfaction
are associated with anger (Ross and Van
Willigen 1997), depression, substance use
problems (Peirce et al. 1994), the disruption of
interpersonal relationships, and domestic vio-
lence (Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz 1981). In
addition, some research shows that life events
evoke interpersonal circumstances character-
ized by negative affect and stress (Tucker and
Friedman 1996).
Are these types of conflictual social and
personal circumstances patterned by age?
Current views suggest they may be, for sever-
al reasons. Older people are less likely to have
children or teenagers to care for within their
household. Thus, reduction in parental respon-
sibilities may reduce time pressures and
account for part of the decrease in marital dis-
satisfaction and financial burdens in the later
years (Hooyman and Kiyak 1996; White and
Edwards 1990). Moreover, age affords the
time and maturity to cultivate more compatible
and stable intimate relationships, friendships,
and group memberships that contain- fewer
conflicts surrounding attitudes, lifestyle choic- social expectations, and less extroverted and
es, and role responsibilities (Keltner 1996;
Neugarten 1996a, 1996b). Furthermore, age-
linked role losses may reduce the number and
intensity of intimate social ties and leave older selectivity theory posits that older people
people less exposed to or emotionally invested
in negative life events to the self and signifi- profoundly affected by others, and show
cant others (Carstensen et al. 1996;
Havighurst, Neugarten, and Tobin 1996). At
the same time, however, the loss of work and
family roles may force older people to culti-
vate alternative forms of social affiliation. One capacity to manage emotional responses to
important measure of social integration is a
commitment to social involvement in the com-
munity (Mirowsky and Ross 1989). For exam-
ple, religious involvement may increase the
commitment to helping others, the sense of
social responsibility, and overall feelings of
social integration. Church affiliation may
serve to furnish a surrogate family for older
adults and reinforce emotionally supportive
exchanges. Taken together, I argue that the age
patterns in social and personal circumstances
contributes to age differences in self-reported
anger.
Socio-Emotional Outlook
Theories about the sites of anger emphasize
social threats to identity and fairness. For
example, shame is often elicited by the words
and actions of people with whom we have
emotional relationships and whose opinions
we value (Scheff 1994; Lewis 1993; Izard
1991). By extension, embarrassment is linked
to social judgements that threaten the self and
identity (Bradford and Petronio 1998).
Existing research touts the significance of
shame for anger (Scheff 1994, 1988).
However, an outlook that is characterized by a
sense of calmness, contentment, and an emo-
tional sense of ease may reduce the odds of
anger provocation stemming from shame,
embarrassment, and dissatisfaction (Keltner
1996; Fischer 1996; Tangney et al. 1992).
Do older people possess a different socio-
emotional outlook than younger adults? As
noted earlier, anger results from conflictual
social interactions. Disengagement theory
(Cumming and Henry 1961), however, pre-
dicts that older people withdraw from society
and have fewer social interactions. By exten-
sion, they become less emotionally invested in
other people and objects, less concerned with
impulsive, and they also become more inner-
focused (Havighurst et al. 1996; Neugarten
1996a, 1996b). Similarly, social-emotional
effectively conserve their emotions, are less
greater self-control, tolerance, and a capacity
to express affection, even in conflictual situa-
tions (Carstensen et al. 1996; Carstensen
1992). Accumulated experience cultivates the
frustrating and unpredictable aspects of life
(Dougherty, Abe, and Izard 1996; Keltner
1996). The self- and social-monitoring
processes involved in experienced shame
reflect a social pressure to conform and a con-
cern for social approval. However, the view of

This content downloaded from 129.100.255.35 on Wed, 14 Nov 2018 03:49:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
276 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
age as maturity suggest that "with growing
insight and skill, social and psychological
traits and tendencies merge into an increasing-
ly harmonious whole" (Mirowsky and Ross
1992:188). Socio-emotional maturity reflects a
lifetime of experience that may overcome con-
cern about social approval and lessen the
salience of conflictual social appraisals.
Realistically then, older people may report
fewer emotions that involve harsh self- and
social-judgements like shame and embarrass-
ment. Collectively, the assertion of older peo-
ple's lower risk of shame and a greater emo-
tional calm implies a lower risk of anger in
later-life.
Control and Health
Fewer conflictual social and personal cir-
cumstances and a matured socio-emotional
outlook may reduce an older person's exposure
to and experience of anger provocation. As
noted earlier, however, theories about the sites
of anger provocation emphasize the experience
of goal impediments, frustration, powerless-
ness, and threats to identity (Canary et al.
1998; Fischer 1996). One common view is of
old age as a period of infirmity (Mirowsky
1995). Resulting physical impairment may
reduce the sense of control. By extension, are
older people likely to have lower control than
younger adults? Under the circumstances of
lower control and poorer health, the view of
later-life as a period of emotional contentment
and positive affect seems paradoxical, particu-
larly if these factors thwart goal attainment
and create the sense of incompetence (Filipp
1996).
Perceived control or mastery is an important handicap that has resulted in a change in their
personal resource for solving problems and
sustaining self-resilience (Turner and Roszell
1994; Pearlin and Schooler 1978). Incapacity
in sensory, motor, and cognitive abilities that is
often worse among older people, however, may
generate frustration and a sense of incompe-
tence (Mirowsky 1995; Rodin 1986; Schaie
1983; Waldron 1983). In addition, physical
impairment can thwart the performance of
essential activities of daily living and social
roles (Turner and Noh 1988). Thus, age-related
physical impairment may ultimately influence
both loss of control (Mirowsky 1995) and
This content downloaded from 129.100.255.35 on Wed, 14 Nov 2018 03:49:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
emotional outcomes like anger (Izard 1991;
Averill 1982). Taken together, it seems realistic
to expect control and health to act as suppres-
sor variables. In other words, the association
between age and anger may be underestimated
without adjusting for the lower perceived con-
trol and poorer health among older people.
METHODS
Samples
The General Social Survey. The data are
from the 1996 General Social Survey (see
Davis and Smith 1996). The GSS is a proba-
bility sample of English speaking adults living
in households in the United States. The origi-
nal survey covered a total of 2,904 respon-
dents. My analyses are based on data for 1,450
individuals who responded to questions in the
emotions topical module. Fifty-six percent are
female. The age range is 18 to 89, with a mean
age of 44 years. Eighty-one percent are white.
The Ontario Survey. These data are from a
study to assist service planning for physically
disabled members living in the community
(see Turner and Wood 1985). From 1980
through 1982, respondents were selected if
they resided in any one of the ten counties in
Southwestern Ontario. A two-stage cluster
technique generated a sample from census-
defined enumeration areas. The initial stage
involved a random sample of 200 enumeration
areas. From these enumeration areas, a repre-
sentative sample of 10,972 households was
selected. The following question determined
eligibility: "Do any adults in the household
have any physical health condition or physical
daily routine or that limits the kind or amount
of activity they can carry out? (For instance:
work, housework, school, play recreation,
shopping, or participation in social activities
or community activities)." The final sample of
989 includes all community-dwelling individ-
uals with a physically limiting condition.
Sixty-six percent are female. The age range is
18 to 96, with a mean age of 56 years. Most of
the respondents are white. Cases missing
responses to anger survey items are dropped,
leaving a sample of 951 for analyses in my
study.
 AGE AND ANGER 277

Measurement nomic hardship measure is .88; higher scores

reflect greater hardship. In the GSS, one finan-
Anger. Table l presents the specific items, cial satisfaction survey item asks respondents,
factor loadings, and reliabilities for each anger "So far as you and your family are concerned,
index. In the Ontario survey, the scale for the would you say that you are (1) pretty well sat-
anger index is taken from a larger instrument isfied with your present financial situation, (2)
called the "How I Feel" scale (Petersen and more or less satisfied, or (3) not satisfied at
Kellam 1977). For each item, a five-point scale all?" I reverse the codes such that higher
assesses the degree to which each statement is scores reflect greater satisfaction.
"not at all like me" or, conversely, "very much In the GSS, a perceived time pressure sur-
like me." Response choices are coded such that vey item asks, "in general, how do you feel
higher scores reflect more anger. In the GSS, about your time would you say that you (1)
the anger index is measured with a three-item never feel rushed even to do things you have to
scale. The final scales are both composite do, (2) only sometimes feel rushed, or (3)
measures in which items are summed. almost always feel rushed." In the GSS, a sat-
Sociodemographic variables and role sta- isfaction with family life survey item asks
tuses. Age is in years. Gender is coded 1 for respondents, "How successful do you feel in
females. Education is measured in years of your family life?" Response choices range
schooling. Minority status in the GSS is coded from (1) "not at all successful" to (5) "very
1 if respondents are non-white. Single, mar- successful."
ried, and widowed statuses are each separately From the Ontario survey, I use six items of
coded 1 in a series of dummy variables, with the Provisions of Social Relations scale
divorced/separated as the contrast category. (Turner 1983) which asks respondents the
Working, homemaker, and retired statuses are extent that the following statements are "very
each separately coded 1, with unemployed as much like my experience" or, conversely, "not
the contrast category. at all like my experience": (1) "I share the
Social and personal circumstances. House- same approach to life that many of my friends
hold composition, in both the GSS and Ontariodo;" (2) "My friends don't know one another
data, is defined as the number of people shar-well;" (3) "Sometimes I'm not sure if I can
ing the same household with the respondent. completely rely on my family;"(4) "My friends
In the Ontario survey, five economic hardship do not always approve of my attitudes and
items measure level of difficulty in meeting lifestyle;" (5) "There are some problems that I
housing, food, personal, transportation, and can't share with anyone;" and (6) "Even when
medical expense needs. The response cate- I am with my friends I feel alone."
gories range from (1) "not at all difficult" to Collectively, these items appear to assess the
(5) "very difficult." Reliability for the eco- degree to which one's social relations are char-
acterized by the sense of interpersonal
estrangement. Response choices range from 1
TABLE 1. Anger Scale Items and Factor
to 5 and are re-coded with higher scores
Analysis Loadings
reflecting more interpersonal estrangement.
Survey Items Loading Reliability of the interpersonal estrangement
The Southwestern Ontario Survey, 1981 index is .593.
1 "When I get angry, I stay angry" .571
In the Ontario survey, life events survey
2. "I yell at people" .755
questions ask respondents to select from a list
3. "I feel like I am boiling inside" .636
4. "I lose my temper" .770 of 21 items common to many life events scales
5. "I feel angry" .707 (Holmes and Rahe 1967). Among the items are
6. "I get into fights or arguments" .686 "lost a job," "had difficulties with your boss,"
Cronbach's Alpha = .776
and "moved to a different house, apartment, or
The General Social Survey (GSS), 1996 community." Respondents indicate if they, or
"On how many days in the past 7 days have members of their family, have experienced the
you ... . event in the past year. Responses are summed;
1. "Felt outraged at something somebody
higher scores reflect more life events.
had done?" .826
2. "Felt mad at something or someone?" .903
In the Ontario survey, a religious involve-
3. "Felt angry at someone?" .907 ment survey question asks respondents how
Cronbach's Alpha = .852 often they attend church or church groups.

This content downloaded from 129.100.255.35 on Wed, 14 Nov 2018 03:49:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 278 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Response choice ranges from (0) "never" to Severity asks respondents "How would you
(5) "daily." Similarly, in the GSS respondents rate the severity of this condition?" The
are asked, "how often do you attend religious response categories range from (1) "not at all
services?" Response choices range from (0) severe" to (5) "very severe." Pain asks respon-
"never" to (8) "several times a week." dents "In general, how would you rate the
Socio-emotional outlook. In the GSS only, severity of your pain in the last month?" The
shame questions ask respondents: "On how response categories range from (1) "mild pain"
many days in the past 7 days have you": "felt to (5) "unbearable pain." Scores on these three
ashamed of something you'd done?" and "felt items were summed and higher scores reflect
embarrassed about something?" These two poorer health; reliability of the composite
items are summed to form a composite mea- Ontario health index is .58. The GSS contains
sure in which higher scores reflect more one survey question about health that asks
shame; the items correlate .447. Emotional respondents "Would you say your own health,
calm questions ask respondents: "On how in general, is excellent, good, fair, or poor?"
many days in the past 7 days have you": "felt Response choices are recoded such that 1 indi-
calm?," "Felt at ease?," "Felt worried?," and cates "poor" and 4 "excellent" health.
"Felt contented?" These items are coded and
summed to form a measure in which higher
scores reflect a greater sense of emotional RESULTS
calm; reliability of the emotional calm index is
.72. Lower Anger among Older Age Groups
The sense of control. In the Ontario dataset,
perceived control is assessed with a seven-item Are there mean differences in anger across
mastery scale developed by Pearlin and age groups? Data from both Ontario and the
Schooler (1978). Respondents are asked to GSS show an essentially linear relationship
describe their feelings about the seven items, between age and anger. The crude means of the
including: "I have little control over the things anger indices by 10-year age group are shown
that happen to me," "I often feel helpless in in Figure 1. Respondents in the 80 and older
dealing with the problems of life," and "What age group have the lowest average anger in
happens to me in the future mostly depends on both the Ontario and GSS data. Comparison of
me." The response categories range from (1) the crude means across 10-year age groups
"strongly agree" to (5) "strongly disagree." supports the hypothesis that anger levels differ
Responses were coded such that higher scores by age, with the lowest levels among the oldest
reflect greater perceived control; reliability of groups.2 The straight lines in the upper and
the Ontario perceived control index is .71. lower graphs in Figure 1 show the fit of anger
In the GSS, the perceived control index asks on age with adjustment for sex, education
respondents the extent to which they agree or (Ontario and GSS), and minority status (GSS
disagree with the following statements: "There only). In equation 1 of Tables 2 and 3, I present
is no sense in planning a lot-if something the total causal association between age and
good is going to happen, it will," "Most of my anger, with adjustment for sociodemographic
problems are due to bad breaks," "The really variables. Older people experience and express
good things that happen to me are mostly significantly less anger than younger people
luck," and "I have little control over the bad do. The effect is significant in both the Ontario
things that happen to me." The response cate- and GSS data sets. In addition, better-educated
gories range from (1) "strongly agree" to (5) people feel significantly less anger, although
"strongly disagree." Response choices are the effect is only significant in the Ontario sur-
coded such that higher scores reflect greater vey. Neither sex nor minority status has a sig-
perceived control; reliability of the GSS per- nificant effect on anger.
ceived control index is .682.
Health. In the Ontario dataset, health is a
composite measure of three items. The impair- Mediating Factors
ment item asks respondents "How often does
your health condition interfere with or limit To evaluate the mediating processes pro-
your usual activities?" The response categories posed earlier, I add marital and employment
range from (1) "rarely" to (6) "all the time." status in equation 2. In equation 3, I add

This content downloaded from 129.100.255.35 on Wed, 14 Nov 2018 03:49:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AGE AND ANGER 279

FIGURE 1. Mean Anger Levels across 10-year Age Groups in Ontario (upper) and U.S. National
(lower) Samples.

Southwestern Ontario, Canada (1 981)

15

14-

13-

12-

10

9 64 108 117 186 263 158 5

8

20s 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80 +

Age Groups

U.S. (1996)

300 337 303 206 152 101 51

1

20s 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 - 69 70 - 79 80 +

Age Groups

Note: The numbers of cases are shown inside the bars. Line shows fit adjusted for sex, education (Ontario and GSS),
and minority status (GSS).

This content downloaded from 129.100.255.35 on Wed, 14 Nov 2018 03:49:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 280 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

TABLE 2. Regression of Anger on Age and Demographics (Equation 1), Social Roles (Equation 2),
Personal and Social Circumstances (Equation 3), and the Sense of Control and Health
(Equation 4); Ontario Survey, 1981

Equation 1 Equation 2 Equation 3 Equation 4

Variables b Beta b Beta b Beta b Beta

Age -.094 -.295*** -.069 -.219*** -.023 -.075 -.043 -.137**

(.010) (.014) (.015) (.015)
Female -.154 -.015 -.125 -.012 .100 .009 -.089 -.008
(.317) (.392) (.375) (.369)
Education -.179 -.114*** -.165 -.105*** -.111 -.071* -.052 -.033
(.051) (.050) (.048) (.048)
Singlea -1.658 -.093* -1.234 -.069 -1.475 -.083*
(.739) (.709) (.697)
Marrieda -.666 -.062 -.325 -.030-.617 -.058
(.560) (.565) (.556)
Widoweda -2.313 -.171*** -1.876 -.139** -1.747 -.129**
(.683) (.646) (.634)
Workingb -1.937 -.167*** -1.600 -.138*** -1.390 -.120***
(.461) (.438) (.434)
Homemakerb -.941 -.080 -.692 -.059 -.532 -.045
(.544) (.515) (.508)
Retiredb -1.740 -.156*** -.194 -.107* -.888 -.079
(.545) (.519) (.513)
Household .477 .127*** .495 .131***
composition (.144) (.141)
Interpersonal .325 .282*** .278 .241
estrangement (.034) (.034)
Economic .233 .025 -.096 -.010
hardship (.298) (.297)
Life events .201 .103*** .176 .090**
(.061) (.060)
Religious -.202 -.058* -.157 -.045
involvement (.103) (.101)
Control -1.110 -.193***
(.180)
Health .054 .028
(.056)
Intercept 19.502 20.181 10.344 15.057
R2 .081 .120 .230 .261

* p <.05; ** p <.01; **
a compared with divorced or separated.
b compared with unemployed.
Note: N = 951; b = unstandardized regression coefficient with standard error in parentheses; Beta = standardized
regression coefficient.

detailed measures of social and personal cir-
cumstances. As described earlier, these mea-
sures differ between the two surveys. The
sense of control and health are added in equa-
tion 4. In equation 5 of Table 3, I add socio-
emotional outlook variables available only in
the GSS.
Marital and occupational status. Widowed
and single people are less angry than divorced
or separated respondents are, but the effects
are only significant in the Ontario survey (see
equation 2 of Tables 2 and 3). Married people,
however, are not significantly different in
anger from the divorced or widowed in either
survey. In addition, working and retired indi-
viduals are significantly less angry than unem-
ployed people in both surveys (see equation 2
of Tables 2 and 3). Homemakers are also less
angry than the unemployed, although that
finding is only significant in the GSS. As a set,
the addition of marital and work statuses to the
model influences the size of the age coeffi-
cient in the Ontario survey. Specifically, the
age coefficient is about 26.6 percent smaller
with adjustment for marital and occupational
statuses (as shown by comparison of equations
1 and 2 in Table 2). In contrast, in the GSS the
coefficient associated with age remains stable;

This content downloaded from 129.100.255.35 on Wed, 14 Nov 2018 03:49:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AGE AND ANGER 281

TABLE 3. Regression of Anger on Age and Demographics (Equation 1), Social Roles (Equation 2),
Social and Personal Circumstances (Equation 3), the Sense of Control and Health
(Equation 4), and Socio-Emotional Outlook (Equation 5); General Social Survey, 1996

Equation 1 Equation 2 Equation 3 Equation 4 Equation 5

Variables b Beta b Beta b Beta b Beta b Beta

Age -.064 -.216*** -.068 -.230*** -.047 -.159*** -.047 -.161*** -.032 -.109**
(.007) (.010) (.011) (.011) (.011)
Female -.119 -.012 -.136 -.013 -.117 -.011 -.089 -.009 -.295 -.029
(.256) (.270) (.266) (.264) (.249)
Education -.059 -.035 -.051 -.030 -.007 -.004 .083 .049 .057 .033
(.044) (.046) (.046) (.050) (.046)
Minoritya -.395 -.031 -.356 -.028 -.421 -.033 -.654 -.052 -.360 -.029
(.328) (.332) (.335) (.337) (.317)
Singleb -.527 -.045 -.130 -.011 -.171 -.014 -.200 -.017
(.414) (.410) (.407) (.382)
Marriedb -.165 -.016 -.241 -.024 .242 .024 .141 .014
(.336) (.360) (.358) (.336)
Widowedb .160 .010 .683 .041 .574 .034 .364 .021
(.535) (.530) (.527) (.495)
Workingc -1.511 -.145** -1.380 -.133* -1.131 -.108 -1.149 -.110*
(.589) (.580) (.578) (.542)
Homemakerc -1.476 -.112* -1.002 -.076 -.979 -.074 -1.092 -.082
(.661) (.651) (.648) (.608)
Retiredc -1.557 -.103* -.962 -.063 -.965 -.063 -1.041 -.069
(.745) (.736) (.731) (.686)
Household .165 .050 .167 .050 .161 .048
composition (.100) (.098) (.092)
Perceived time .719 .100*** .687 .095** .181 .025*
pressures (.200) (.200) (.191)
Satisfaction with -.619 -.108*** -.514 -.090*** -.205 -.035
family life (.155) (.156) (.148)
Satisfaction with -.602 -.092*** -.510 -.078** -.250 -.038
finances (.174) (.175) (.165)
Religious -.152 -.081** -.141 -.075** -.071 -.037
involvement (.050) (.049) (.047)
Control -.166 -.106*** -.093 -.060*
(.045) (.042)
Health -.456 -.072** -.223 -.035
(.172) (.163)
Shame .503 .206***
(.058)
Emotional -.177 -.263***
calm (.018)
Intercept 8.447 10.141 10.065 11.929 11.883
R2 .045 .050 .093 .107 .215
*p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001
a whites = 0; minority = 1.
b compared with divorced or separated.
c compared with unemployed.
Note: N = 1450; b = unstandardized regression coefficient with standard error in parentheses; Beta = standardized
regression coefficient.

there is a trivial increase (5.8%) with adjust- retirement among older people explain part of
ment for marital and work statuses. Taken the association of age and anger.
together, these findings suggest that being Social and personal circumstances. In the
unemployed and divorced are statuses most Ontario survey, people who live in households
likely to produce the highest levels of anger. with a greater number of individuals are more
Being employed (both Ontario and GSS), likely to experience anger than those with
retired (Ontario), and widowed (Ontario) had fewer cohabitants (see equation 3 of Table 2).
the strongest effects on anger. In Ontario only,In the GSS, separate analyses show that the
however, higher rates of widowhood and positive anger effect of household composition

This content downloaded from 129.100.255.35 on Wed, 14 Nov 2018 03:49:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
282 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

occurs entirely through perceived time pres-
sures and satisfaction with family life. In addi-
tion, respondents who are more satisfied with
their financial circumstances are less likely to
be angry, although the effect of financial
(satisfaction) is only significant in the GSS.
Both surveys show that social relationships
among family and friends are related to anger,
although different measures are used in both
surveys (see equation 3 of Tables 2 and 3).
Specific to the Ontario survey, people with
more interpersonal estrangement are more
likely to report anger. Moreover, separate
analyses show that most of the positive effect
of economic hardship on anger is attributable
to its influence on estrangement. In addition,
people who experience more life events report
more anger. Specific to the GSS data set, peo-
ple who feel a sense of time pressures in their
daily commitments and are less satisfied with
their family life are more likely to report anger.
In both the Ontario survey and the GSS,
greater religious involvement is significantly
associated with lower anger.
Collectively, the addition of the social and
personal circumstance variables to the model
reduces the size of the age coefficient for both
samples. In the Ontario survey, the coefficient
associated with age becomes about 75.5 per-
cent smaller with adjustment for roles, house-
Socio-emotional outlook. In the GSS only, I
hold composition, economic hardship, inter-
personal estrangement, life events, and reli-
gious involvement (as shown by comparison of
equations 1 and 3 in Table 2).4 In the GSS, the
age coefficient becomes about 26.6 percent
smaller with adjustment for roles, household
composition, time pressures, satisfaction with higher emotional calm, although average
family life and financial circumstances, and
religious involvement (comparison of equa-
tions 1 and 3 in Table 3).5
Generally speaking, social and personal cir-
cumstances have strong effects on anger, and
most of these variables are patterned by age.
Specifically in the Ontario survey, estranged
interpersonal relationships, household compo-
sition (see Figure 2), economic hardship, and
life events (see Figure 3) are patterned by age
and influence anger. In the GSS, perceived
time pressures and satisfaction with finances
are related to anger and are also distributed
differentially across age (see Figure 4). Taken
together, part of the age effect on anger in the
Ontario survey and the GSS is attributable to
age differences in social and personal circum-
stances. In Ontario, the age coefficient is
reduced to statistical non-significance.
Control and health. In both surveys, people
with a higher sense of control or mastery feel
less angry (see equation 4 in Tables 2 and 3).
People with worse health report higher levels
of anger, but in both surveys a considerable
part of that effect is due to their lower control.
In the Ontario survey only, control and health
have strong suppression effects. That is, were it
not for their lower mastery and worse health
older people would report even less anger.
Thus, the magnitude of the age coefficient
increases from -.023 (equation 3) to -.043
(equation 4) with adjustment for mastery and
health. However, in the GSS the age coeffi-
cient remains stable with adjustment for con-
trol and health (see equations 3 and 4 in Table
3). In the GSS, the sense of control is low
among the youngest age groups, higher among
the middle age groups, and low among the old-
est age groups. In contrast, health plays a
slight but larger suppressor role than control.
In separate analyses, without control in the
model the magnitude of the age coefficient
increases slightly to -.051. Taken together, the
impact of control and health differs between
the two samples. Overall, however, control
does have a direct effect on anger in both sur-
veys.
assess the influence of socio-emotional out-
look variables on the association between age
and anger. Individuals who report less shame
and more emotional calm have significantly
less anger (see equation 5 in Table 3). Older
people report less shame and greater levels of
scores on that index peak among the 60-69
age groups and are slightly lower in the two
oldest age groups (see Figure 5). Together, part
of the age-group difference in anger is attrib-
utable to those age-patterns. In the GSS, the
magnitude of the age coefficient is reduced by
about 54.2 percent with adjustment for all
mediating variables and socio-emotional out-
look variables (comparison of equations 1 and
5 in Table 3).
DISCUSSION
In this study, I address two questions. Are
there age patterns in anger? And, if so, what
processes explain the pattern? I use two sur-

This content downloaded from 129.100.255.35 on Wed, 14 Nov 2018 03:49:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AGE AND ANGER 283

FIGURE 2. Mean Interpersonal Estrangement Scores and Number of People Living in the Same
Household across 10-year Age Groups in the Ontario Sample.

17 3.5
1- I

16 | Number Living in Household 3.0

z
CI)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C
E 2.5 3
~15 C
CD~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C"
2.0

14

1.5 64
CD0
~13 C,,
1.) 1.0 E
C: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

12 0.5

1.8 T cno i adsi

11 I .0
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+

Age Groups

FIGURE 3. Average Scores on the Economic Hardship Index and Number of Life Events across 10-
year Age Groups in the Ontario Sample.

1.8 --5.5
-i-Ec

1.7 -Ufe Events5.

1.6

1.5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

72 ~~~~~~~~~~~4.0~
I m
01.4<
1. 3.5.
013
0
w
3.0
1.2

1.1 2.5

1.0 20
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+

Age Groups

This content downloaded from 129.100.255.35 on Wed, 14 Nov 2018 03:49:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
284 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

FIGURE 4. Average Scores on Satisfaction with Finances and Perceived Time Pressure Survey Items
across 10-year Age Groups in the U.S. Sample.

2.4 2.4

2.3 2.2

co

C 2.2 2.0
co~~~~~~~
3
CD

2.1 1.8
CD)
O CD)
co ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CD
~2.0 1.6
CD)

o u -,,,,,,- , - '

1.9 ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~Satisfaction with Finances 1.

-.-Perceived Time Pressure

1.8 i i i I i 1.2
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 81 +

Age Groups

FIGURE 5. Average Scores on Shame and Emotional Calm Indices across 10-year Age Groups in
the U.S. Sample.

1.3 21

1.2 20

1.1 m
19 3
0
x -I
v 10

a) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~18 0
E
co0.9

Co ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~17 0-C
0.8

0.7 Sae1 6
-.-Emotional

0.6 IIIIII1 5
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 81 +

Age Groups

This content downloaded from 129.100.255.35 on Wed, 14 Nov 2018 03:49:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AGE AND ANGER 285

veys with distinct geographic and chronologi- relationships with family and friends are relat-
cal characteristics: a 1981 representative sam- ed to anger. Specific to Ontario, people who
ple of physically disabled residents in report more interpersonal estrangement report
Southwestern Ontario, Canada and a national more anger. These results reinforce recent
probability sample of U.S. residents. In findings that indicate socially supportive rela-
response to the first question, I find that older tions and financial resources have a negative
people have lower levels of anger than younger effect on anger (Ross and Van Willigen 1997).
adults. Despite the distinct qualities, the pat- In addition, respondents in the GSS sample
terns are similar in the two samples. One might who report feeling rushed by time pressures in
expect that, among physically disabled, balancing their daily activities and who are
younger respondents would report more anger less satisfied with family life report more
because of the non-normative timing of their anger. In both the Ontario and GSS samples,
impairment. My replication of the age-anger religious involvement is negatively associated
association in a national probability sample of with anger. That finding is important because
U.S. households undermines that argument. In as older people lose work and family roles they
addition, my findings reinforce others that may seek alternative forms of social con-
show a negative association between age and nectedness and integration-social affiliation
anger (Mirowsky and Ross 1995; Van Willigen that may have positive consequences for social
and Ross 1996, 1997). Together, these studies support, the sense of control, and emotionality.
indicate that something about the experience To sum, age differences in these social and
of later life or something common among personal circumstances contribute to the age
older age groups influences anger. My paper differences in anger. In the Ontario survey, on
suggests age differences in role statuses, per- average older people tend to have: (1) fewer
sonal and social circumstances, health and people living in the same household, (2) less
control, and socio-emotional outlook con- economic hardship, (3) less interpersonal
tribute to lower anger among older age groups. estrangement, and (4) fewer life events.
Marital and work role statuses have impor- Adjustment for these factors reduces the mag-
tant effects on anger, although the effects are nitude of the age coefficient by about 77.6 per-
only significant in the Ontario survey. First, cent. In the GSS, on average older people tend
widowed and single people have less anger to: (1) have fewer people living in the same
than divorced or separated individuals. In par- household, (2) feel less rushed by time pres-
ticular, older people are more likely to be wid- sures in daily life, (3) are more satisfied with
owed; thus, age-group differences in widow- their financial and family circumstances, and
hood contribute to lower anger among older (4) have greater religious involvement.
age groups. In addition, analyses of both data Adjustment for these social and personal cir-
sets show that retired and employed people cumstances reduces the magnitude of the age
report significantly less anger than the unem- coefficient by about 25 percent. In the Ontario
ployed. In the Ontario survey only, however, survey, the total association between age and
age-group differences in employment status anger is reduced to non-significance with
contribute to the total association between age adjustment for role statuses and personal and
and anger. Taken together, adjustment for mar- social circumstance variables. In the GSS,
ital and work statuses explains about 27 per- however, these are not the sole explanations of
cent of the total association between age and older people's lower self-reported anger.
anger. In contrast, adjustment of marital and The sense of control is negatively related to
work statuses increases the size of the age the experience and expression of anger in both
coefficient by a trivial amount in the GSS. surveys. In the GSS, however, about half of the
Sharing a household with more people is effect of control on anger is attributable to its
positively associated with anger, although the association with emotional calm. This finding
effect is only significant in the Ontario survey. differs from a recent study that showed no
In addition, respondents who are more satis- direct association between control and anger
fied with their financial situation are less like- (Ross and Van Willigen 1997). In addition, my
ly to be angry, although that direct effect is results show that a considerable part of the
only significant in the GSS. In the Ontario sur- health effect on anger occurs through control.
vey, life events are positively associated with Together, the suppression effect of control and
anger. Furthermore, both data sets show social health implies that were it not for their lower

This content downloaded from 129.100.255.35 on Wed, 14 Nov 2018 03:49:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
286 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

control and worse health older people would However, anger is a complex social and per-
report even less anger than their younger coun- sonal emotion that is quite often shaped by sit-
terparts. Thus, in the Ontario survey the mag- uational and personal context. Therefore, in
nitude of the age coefficient increases by 43 addition to the growing number of studies
percent with adjustment for control and health. about anger activation more research is need-
With adjustment for control and health in the ed that specifically addresses the way age is
GSS, however, the age coefficient remains sta- associated with the targets, course, modula-
ble. That finding is due, in part, to the fact that tion, consequences, and interpretation of
control is low among the younger age groups, angry emotionality.
highest among the middle age groups, and
then low again among the oldest age groups.
Socio-emotional outlook is related to the CONCLUSION
experience of anger. Individuals who report
feeling ashamed and embarrassed also report Are older adults less angry than younger
more anger. My findings show that older peo- people? Current views of age and recent stud-
ple have significantly lower levels of shame- ies about anger provide a basis for believing
which contributes the their lower anger. In they are. In this paper, I test two views. The
addition, people who possess a sense of emo- first view is that age differences in role status,
tional ease, calm, and contentment in their social and personal circumstances, and socio-
lives are less likely to be angry. Older people emotional outlook contribute to the lower
report generally higher levels of emotional anger among older people. The second view is
calm than younger adults. According to theo- that we underestimate anger among older peo-
ries about anger provocation, the socio- ple if we fail to adjust for their lower control
emotional outlook of older people in the U.S. and poorer health. The results of a representa-
sample is conducive to a lower risk of anger. tive sample of physically disabled individuals
Collectively, my findings confirm that shame from Southwestern Ontario, Canada and a
and emotional calm reduce the magnitude of national probability sample of U.S. residents
the age effect on anger by about 54 percent in show that older people report lower anger than
the GSS sample. younger adults. Age and life-course differ-
Several other findings that are peripheral to ences in work and family statuses, social and
the central research questions in my study are personal circumstances, health and control,
noteworthy. First, the lack of significant sex and socio-emotional outlook suggest that these
differences in anger in both surveys is incon- factors influence the total association between
sistent with findings from two recent national age and anger.
probability samples of U.S. residents in which
women report significantly higher levels of
anger than men (Mirowsky and Ross 1995; NOTES
Ross and Van Willigen 1996, 1997).
Notwithstanding the fact that the Ontario 1. The Ontario
and data is better suited to assess
GSS indices of anger differ from those theinimpact
the of health because of the special-
other studies, the failure of my findings to ized nature of the sample and the original
reinforce previous patterns in sex differences intention of the research (described in detail
raises the need for further inquiry into that in the sample section).
topic. In addition, my findings about the asso- 2. Both surveys show that the 20-29 age
ciation between education and anger are group has a slightly lower mean anger
mixed-a finding that parallels the inconclu- scores than the 30 to 39 year-old age group.
sive results from other recent surveys (Ross To test the possibility of a deviation from
and Van Willigen 1997). Thus, further investi- linearity, I performed regression analyses of
gation into the affective outcomes of social anger on age, age raised to the second
disadvantage are needed to build knowledge power, sex, and education using the Ontario
about how the risk for anger is attributable to data set. The same was done with the GSS,
the way education structures exposure to, and adding in minority status. The age-squared
experience of, the sites of anger provocation. term does not contribute to the overall
Finally, my study documents and describes the r-squared in either survey. Based on those
age distribution of the frequency of anger. analyses, the aim of my study is to explain

This content downloaded from 129.100.255.35 on Wed, 14 Nov 2018 03:49:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 AGE AND
the essentially negative linear association
between age and anger in both surveys.
3. I also ran analyses using a variable measur-
ing the "number of individuals under age
18 living in the home" (in the GSS only).
There is little difference between those
results and the ones using the variable
"number of people living in the same
household." In fact, the latter had a some-
what stronger positive effect on anger.
4. In a regression of age on sex, education,
household composition, finances, social
relations, life events, and religious involve-
ment excluding marital and occupational
role statuses the age coefficient is -.031
(I = -.099). Thus, the amount of the age
coefficient attributable to solely social and
personal circumstances is about 67 percent.
5. Without marital and work statuses in the
model, the inclusion of personal and social Academic Press.
circumstances reduces the magnitude of the Fischer, Constance T. 1996. "A Humanistic and
age coefficient from -.064 to -.043 (32.8
percent).
REFERENCES
Aneshensel, Carol S. 1992. "Social Stress: Theory
and Research." Annual Review of Sociology
18:15-38.
Aneshensel, Carol S., Carolyn M. Rutter, and Peter
A. Lachenbruch. 1991. "Social Structure, Stress,
and Mental Health: Competing Conceptual and
Analytic Models." American Sociological
Review 56:166-78.
Averill, James R. 1982. Anger and Aggression: An
Essay on Emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bradford, Lisa and Sandra Petronio. 1998.
"Strategic Embarrassment: The Culprit of
Emotion." Pp. 99-121 in Handbook of
Communication and Emotion: Research,
Theory, Applications, and Contexts, edited by
Peter A. Andersen and Laura K. Guerrero. San
Diego: Academic Press.
Canary, Daniel J., Brian H. Spitzberg, and Beth A.
Semic. 1998. "The Experience and Expression
of Anger in Interpersonal Settings." Pp. 189-213
in Handbook of Communication and Emotion:
Research, Theory, Applications, and Contexts,
edited by Peter A. Andersen and Laura K.
Guerrero. San Diego: Academic Press.
Carstensen, Laura L. 1992. "Social and Emotional
Patterns in Adulthood: Support for
Socioemotional Selectivity Theory." Psychology
andAging 7:331-38.
Carstensen, Laura L., Jeremy Graff, Robert W
Levenson, and John M. Gottman. 1996. "Affect
in Intimate Relationships." Pp. 227-48 in
This content downloaded from 129.100.255.35 on Wed, 14 Nov 2018 03:49:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ANGER 287
Handbook of Emotion, Adult Development, and
Aging, edited by Carol Magai and Susan H.
McFadden. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Cumming, Elaine and William Henry. 1961.
Growing Old: The Process of Disengagement.
New York: Basic Books.
Davis, James and Tom Smith. 1996. General Social
Surveys, 1972-1996 Cumulative Codebook and
Data File. Chicago, IL: National Opinion
Research Center and the University of Chicago.
Dougherty, Linda M., Jo Ann Abe, and Carroll E.
Izard. 1996. "Differential Emotions Theory and
Emotional Development in Adulthood and Later
Life." Pp. 27-42 in Handbook of Emotion, Adult
Development, andAging, edited by Carol Magai
and Susan H. McFadden. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Filipp, Sigrun-Heide. 1996. "Motivation and
Emotion." Pp. 218-35 in Handbook of the
Psychology ofAging, edited by James E. Birren
and K. Warner Schaie. San Diego, CA:
Human Science Approach to Emotion." Pp.
67-82 in Handbook of Emotion, Adult
Development, andAging, edited by Carol Magai
and Susan H. McFadden. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Guerrerro, Laura K., Peter A. Anderson, and
Melanie R. Trost. 1998. "Communication and
Emotion: Basic Concepts and Approaches." Pp.
5-29 in Handbook of Communication and
Emotion: Research, Theory, Applications, and
Contexts, edited by Peter A. Anderson and Laura
K. Guerrero. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Havighurst, Robert J., Bernice L. Neugarten, and
Sheldon S. Tobin. 1996. "Disengagement,
Personality, and Life Satisfaction in the Later
Years." Pp. 281-87 in The Meanings of Age,
edited by Dail A. Neugarten. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Holmes, Thomas H. and Richard Rahe. 1967. "The
Social Readjustment Rating Scale." Journal of
Psychosomatic Research 11:213-18.
Hooyman, Nancy and H. Asuman Kiyak. 1996.
Social Gerontology, 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Horwitz, Allan V, Julie McLaughlin, and Helene
Raskin White. 1998. "How the Negative and
Positive Aspects of Partner Relationships Affect
the Mental Health of Young Married People."
Journal of Health and Social Behavior
39:124-36.
Houston, B. Kent. and Karen E. Kelly. 1989.
"Hostility in Employed Women: Relations to
Work and Marital Experiences, Social Support,
Stress, and Anger Expression." Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin 15:175-82.
Izard, Carroll E. 1991. The Psychology of Emotions.
New York: Plenum Press.
Jenkins, Jennifer M. and Keith Oatley. 1996.
288 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
"Emotional Episodes and Emotionality Through
the Life Span." Pp. 421-42 in Handbook of
Emotion, Adult Development, and Aging, edited
by Carol Magai and Susan H. McFadden. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Keltner, Dacher. 1996. "Facial Expressions of
Emotion and Personality." Pp. 385-401 in
Handbook of Emotion, Adult Development, and
Aging, edited by Carol Magai and Susan H.
McFadden. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Kemper, Theodore D. 1990. "Social Relations and
Emotions: A Structural Approach." Pp. 207-237
in Research Agendas in the Sociology of
Emotions, edited by Theodore D. Kemper.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
1993. "Sociological Models in the
Explanation of Emotions." Pp. 41-52 in
Handbook of Emotions, edited by Michael
Lewis and Jeannette M. Haviland. New York:
The Guilford Press.
Lazarus, Richard S. 1996. "The Role of Coping in
the Emotions and How Coping Changes over the
Life Course." Pp. 289-306 in Handbook of
Emotion, Adult Development, and Aging, edited
by Carol Magai and Susan H. McFadden. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lewis, Michael. 1993. "Self-Conscious Emotions:
Embarrassment, Pride, Shame, and Guilt." Pp.
563-73 in Handbook of Emotions, edited by
Michael Lewis and Jeannette M. Haviland. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Mirowsky, John. 1995. "Age and the Sense of
Control." Social Psychology Quarterly 58:
31-43.
.1998. "An Informative Sociology of Health
and Well-Being." Journal of Health and Social
Behavior 39:1-3.
Mirowsky, John and Catherine E. Ross. 1989.
Social Causes of Psychological Distress.
Hawthorne, New York: Aldine.
. 1992. "Age and Depression." Journal of
Health and Social Behavior 33:187-205.
1995. "Sex Differences in Distress: Real or
Artifact?" American Sociological Review
60:449-68.
Morgan, Leslie and Suzanne Kunkel. 1998. Aging:
The Social Context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine
Forge Press.
Neugarten, Bernice L. 1996a. "Time, Age, and the
Life Cycle." Pp. 114-27 in The Meanings of
Age, edited by Dail A. Neugarten. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
. 1996b. "Personality Changes in the Aged."
Pp. 256-63 in The Meanings ofAge, edited by
Dail A. Neugarten. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Neugarten, Bernice L. and Nancy Datan. 1996.
"Sociological Perspectives on the Life Cycle."
Pp. 96-113 in The Meanings ofAge, edited by
Dail A. Neugarten. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
This content downloaded from 129.100.255.35 on Wed, 14 Nov 2018 03:49:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Orbuch, Terri L., James S. House, Richard P. Mero,
and Pamela S. Webster. 1996. "Marital Quality
over the Life Course." Social Psychology
Quarterly 59:162-71.
Pearlin, Leonard I. and Carmi Schooler. 1978. "The
Structure of Coping." Journal of Health and
Social Behavior 19:2-21.
Peirce, Robert S., Michael R. Frone, Marcia
Russell, and M. Lynne Cooper. 1994.
"Relationship of Financial Strain and
Psychosocial Resources to Alcohol Use and
Abuse: The Mediating Force of Negative Affect
and Drinking Motives." Journal of Health and
Social Behavior 35:291-308.
Petersen, Anne. C. and Sheppard G. Kellam. 1977.
"Measurement of the Psychological Well-Being
of Adolescents: The Psychometric Properties
and Assessment Procedures of the 'How I Feel."'
Journal of Youth andAdolescence 6:229-47.
Power, Mick and Tim Dalgleish. 1997. Cognition
and Emotion: From Order to Disorder. East
Sussex, United Kingdom: Erlbaum.
Rodin, Judith. 1986. "Aging and Health: Effects of
the Sense of Control." Science 233:1271-76.
Ross, Catherine E. and Patricia Drentea. 1998.
"Consequences of Retirement Activities for
Distress and the Sense of Personal Control."
Journal of Health and Social Behavior
39:317-34.
Ross, Catherine E. and Joan Huber. 1985.
"Hardship and Depression." Journal of Health
and Social Behavior 26:312-27.
Ross, Catherine E. and Marieke Van Willigen. 1996.
"Gender, Parenthood, and Anger." Journal of
Marriage and the Family 58:572-84.
Russell, James A. and Beverly Fehr. 1994. "Fuzzy
Concepts in a Fuzzy Hierarchy: Varieties of
Anger." Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 67:186-205.
Schaie, K. Warner. 1983. "The Seattle Longitudinal
Study: A 21-Year Exploration of Psychometric
Intelligence in Adulthood." Pp. 64-135 in
Longitudinal Studies of Adult Psychological
Development, edited by K. Warner Schaie. New
York: Guilford.
Scheff, Thomas J. 1988. "Shame and Conformity:
The Deference-Emotion System." American
Sociological Review 53:395-406.
Scheff, Thomas J. 1994. Microsociology:
Discourse, Emotion and Social Structure.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Siegman, Aron W. 1994. "Cardiovascular
Consequences of Expressing and Repressing
Anger." Pp. 173-197 in Anger, Hostility, and the
Heart, edited by Aron W. Siegman and Timothy
W. Smith. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
Simon, Robin W. 1998. "Assessing Sex Differences
in Vulnerability Among Employed Parents: The
Importance of Marital Status." Journal ofHealth
and Social Behavior 39:38-54.
Smith-Lovin, Lynn. 1995. "The Sociology of Affect
 AGE AND ANGER 289

and Emotion." Pp. 118-48 in Sociological Moderating Effects of Social Support on

Perspectives on Social Psychology, edited by
Karen. S. Cook, Gary A. Fine, and James S.
House. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Stearns, Carol Z. and Peter N. Stearns. 1986. Anger:
The Struggle for Emotional Control in America '
History. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Straus, Murry A., Richard J. Gelles, and Suzanne K.
Steinmetz. 1981. Behind Closed Doors:
Violence in the American Family. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday/Anchor.
Tangney, June P., Patricia Wagner, Carey Fletcher,
and Richard Gramzow. 1992. "Shamed into
Anger? The Relation of Shame and Guilt to
Anger and Self-Reported Aggression." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 62:669-75.
Tavris, Carol. 1982. Anger: The Misunderstood
Emotion. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Thoits, Peggy A. 1989. "The Sociology of
Emotion." Annual Review of Sociology
15:317-42.
. 1995. "Stress, Coping, and Social Support
Psychological Distress and Associated
Conditions." Pp. 105-55 in Psychosocial Stress:
Trends in Theory and Research, edited by
Howard B. Kaplan. New York: Academic Press.
Turner, R. Jay and Samuel Noh. 1988. "Physical
Disability and Depression: A Longitudinal
Analysis." Journal of Health and Social
Behavior 29:263-77.
Turner, R. Jay and Patricia Roszell. 1994. "Personal
Resources and the Stress Process." Pp. 179-210
in Stress and Mental Health: Contemporary
Issues and Prospects for the Future, edited by
William R. Avison and Ian H. Gotlib. New York:
Plenum Press.
Turner, R. Jay and William Wood. 1985.
"Depression and Disability: The Stress Process
in a Chronically Strained Population." Research
in Community and Mental Health 5:77-109.
Van Willigen, Marieke and Catherine E. Ross.
1997. "Education and the Subjective Quality of
Life." Journal of Health and Social Behavior

Processes: Where are We? What Next?" Journal 38:275-97.

of Health and Social Behavior 36(Extra
Issue):53-79.
Tucker, Joan S. and Howard S. Friedman. 1996.
"Emotion, Personality, and Health." Pp. 307-26
in Handbook of Emotion, Adult Development,
andAging, edited by Carol Magai and Susan H.
McFadden. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Turner, R. Jay. 1983. "Direct, Indirect and
Waldron, Ingrid. 1983. "Sex Differences in Illness
Incidence, Prognosis, and Mortality: Issues and
Evidence." Social Science and Medicine
17:1107-23.
White, Lynn and John N. Edwards. 1990.
"Emptying the Nest and Parental Well-Being:
An Analysis of National Panel Data." American
Sociological Review 55:235-42.

Scott Schieman is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Miami. His general research inter-
ests focus on social structure, stress, mental health, and emotions. He is currently working on several
research projects. One study examines age and sex differences in affect, empathy, and emotional investment
in interpersonal relationships. Another study investigates the role of education and the sense of control in
the activation, course, and management of anger.

This content downloaded from 129.100.255.35 on Wed, 14 Nov 2018 03:49:30 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms