How Shall the Concept of Anger be Defined?

Abstract

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.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 57 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.