Table Of ContentJournal of Psychology and Christianity Copyright 2006 Christian Association for P.sychological Studies
2006, Vol. 25, No. 3, 195-204 ISSN 0733-4273
The ACE Model of Emotions: What Separates
Righteous and Sinful Emotions?
Rodney L. Bassett Catherine Luzadder Patricia Manley Rosemary Miano
Christen Santore Julie Putnam
Roberts Wesleyan College
The purpose of this study was to test the assumption made by the ACE model that what separates func-
tional from dysfunctional (righteous from sinful) emotional experiences are the cognitive and expressive ele-
ments, not physiological activation. In this study, 36 students were asked to recall a past experience with
functional or dysfunctional anger. Heart rate was monitored before and after the recollection. Following the
recollection, students evaluated the experience along dimensions designed to tap the cognitive and expres-
sive aspects of the emotional experience. Consistent with the ACE model of emotion, the results revealed
meaningful differences between functional and dysftjnctional experiences within the cognitive and expres-
sive domains but not within the physiological domain.
For some Christians, particular emotions may same way of thinking about emotional experience
seem more "righteous" than others. After all, the to the emotion of anger. Ellis makes a distinction
biblical listings of the fruit of the Spirit include between healthy and unhealthy anger in his clini-
emotions like love and joy. Those listings do not cal practice. He contends that many therapists try
include emotions like anger and fear. But, the to suppress client's anger and hope that just talk-
ACE model of emotion (Bassett & Hill, 1998) ing about the emotions will provide sufficient
suggests such a view of emotions may be too therapeutic relief. However, in his clinical experi-
limited. Instead, the ACE model proposes three ence, Ellis has found it more beneficial to channel
basic ideas: (a) all emotions are morally angry feelings in a positive fashion. He uses ratio-
ambidextrous (any emotion has the potential to nal-emotive methods to help hostile clients to be
be righteous or sinful); (b) the essential elements "constructively assertive instead of defeatingly
of all emotions are physiological activation [A], angry" (p. 251). So, clients can be helped to use
cognition [C], and expression [E]; and (c) what the emotion of anger in a positive fashion.
separates righteous from sinful (functional from Of course, if you can not automatically classify
dysfunctional) emotional experiences is the cog- an emotion as always good or always bad, then
nitive and expressive components of emotion, there need to be criteria that help one discern
not physiological activation. when an emotion is in fact good or bad. Ellis
Others seem to agree that it is unwise to con- (1976) argued that positive emotions uphold basic
sistently categorize an emotion as functional or human values and negative emotions obstruct
dysfunctional (good or bad). For example, those values. The basic human values that he
Solomon and Stone (2002) argue that this tradi- identified were: "survival, happiness, social accep-
tional polarization of emotions oversimplifies the tance, and intimate relations" (p. 240). Ellis
complexity of the emotional experience. Accord- believed that a significant contributor to these
ing to Solomon and Stone, all emotions have the basic human values is cognitive. He contended
capacity to be positive or negative. Fear for that once people evaluate their emotions they are
example, which is usually thought of as nega- subject to either rational or irrational beliefs that
tive, "... might even be perceived as a good influence their actions. Rational beliefs are consis-
emotion if it propels us to remove ourselves tent with human values while irrational beliefs
from danger." (p. 419) undermine those values. Hence positive (or con-
Going from a broad overview of emotions to a structive) emotions can be assessed by how peo-
narrower perspective, Ellis (1976) applies the ple cognitively respond to their emotions and
how their resulting actions impact the basic
Portions of this article were presented at the annual
human value system.
meeting of the Christian Association for Psychological
Studies, Dallas, TX. Correspondence should be Another way of thinking about good and bad
addressed to Rod Bassett at RWC, 2301 Westside emotions has flowed out of Tangney's distinction
Drive, Rochester, NY 14624. [email protected] between shame and guilt (Tangney, 1990; 1995).
195
196 THE ACE MODEL OF EMOTIONS: WHAT SEPARATES RIGHTEOUS AND SINEUL EMOTIONS?
Shame and guilt are emotions that people experi- constructive and destructive emotional experi-
ence when they believe they have acted in ways ences are the cognitive and expressive elements.
that are socially or morally unacceptable. Both Of the three emotional elements, physiological
emotions are negative self-relevant emotions. activation (A) refers to the bodily changes that
However, shame is conceptualized as more global are under the control of the limbic system and
in nature with the entire person feeling inade- the autonomic nervous system. With some emo-
quate, under scrutiny, worthless, and powerless. tions these changes may have an alerting or
In contrast, with guilt the emotional experience is arousing quality. With other emotions the
conceptualized as more focused on the specific changes may be more calming or restorative. As
behavior. The inadequacy of the behavior is not a result, all emotions have an "embodied" quali-
generalized to the entire individual. The behavior ty. We literally "feel" emotions. Cognition (C)
may be reprehensible, but the person is not. simply refers to all relevant conscious and sub-
Tangney and her colleagues have suggested that conscious thoughts. Expression (E) refers to all
tendencies toward experiencing shame- and guilt
body movements and speech controlled by the
can be dispositional (see Tangney, 1990).
voluntary nervous system. Such movements may
Obviously, shame is a "bad" emotion while be subtle (clenching of the teeth) or dramatic
guilt is a "good" emotion. However, even more (striking an opponent). These movements serve
interesting was the prediction of Tangney, Wagn- a communicative function, to self and others, for
er, Hill-Barlow, Marschall, and Gramzow (1996) the different emotions.
that anger would play a more problematic role
Applying a Christian perspective to these ideas
for shame-prone individuals than for guilt-prone
about emotion, Bassett and Hill propose that two
individuals. In a cross-sectional developmental
dimensions are especially important for under-
study of children, adolescents, college students,
standing emotions: (a) reflective/nonreflective
and non-college adults, two sets of age-appropri-
processing, and (b) constaictive/destructive pro-
ate measures were taken. The first set of mea-
cessing. The reflective/nonreflective dimension is
sures assessed dispositional tendencies toward
what makes the ACE model a dual-process
shame and guilt. The second set of measures
model. The nonreflective end of this dimension
assessed the extent to which anger played a con-
involves subconscious processes. These process-
structive or destructive role in participants' lives.
es can be subconscious for several reasons. First,
Across all age groups, shame proneness was
the emotional experience may not have enough
generally associated with destructive anger expe-
significance for the individual to justify more
riences (malevolent intentions, direct and indi-
careful consideration. Second, the emotional
rect aggression, and negative long-term
experience may be automatic. Finally, the emo-
consequences from the anger experience). In
tional experience may be pushed into the uncon-
contrast, guilt proneness tended to predict con-
scious by defensive mechanisms. The reflective
structive anger experiences (constructive inten-
end of this dimension involves conscious pro-
tions, corrective action and nonhostile
communication, and more positive long-term cessing that will be more effortful and elabora-
consequences from the anger experience). tive. Reflective processing is particularly
important for the ACE model because the model
Finally, a model that considers the issue of
proposes that this is the locus of hutnan choice.
good and bad emotions from a psychological
Human choice introduces the element of human
and Christian perspective is the ACE model
responsibility. Thus, reflective emotional process-
(Bassett & Hill, 1998). The ACE model assumes
that the necessary and sufficient elements of an ing opens the door for the distinction between
emotion are physiological activation, cognition, sinful and righteous emotional experiences.
and expression. If one or more of these elements The second dimension that is particularly impor-
is missing, then a persori will experience some- tant in the ACE model is constructive/destaictive
thing that is different from an emotion. Also, processing. The concepaial basis for this dimen-
these three elements are assumed to be interac- sion is the person and character of God. The
tive; therefore, what happens with one element model assumes that everything that is consistent
can impact the other elements. Further, the with the character of God is ultimately constmctive
model argues that all emotions have the capacity in human experience. Everything that is inconsis-
to be constructive or destructive (righteous or tent with God's character is ultimately destmctive
sinful). According to the model what separates in human experience.
BASSETT, LUZADDER, MANLEY, MIANO, SANTORE, AND PUTNAM 197
Orthogonally combining these two dimensions that during this process physiological rneasures
produces four emotional quadrants. Emotional would be taken. Finally, all participants were
experiences that are reflective and constructive, guaranteed that their recalled anger experiences
the model identifies as "righteous." Emotional could be kept confidential. The group of partici-
experiences that are reflective and destructive, pants included 9 freshmen, 8 sophomores, 6
the model identifies as "sin." Emotional experi- juniors, 3 seniors, and 10 graduate students. The
ences that are nonreflective and constructive, the group was evenly split between males and
model identifies as "natural." And, emotional females and the average age was 21.2 years. The
experiences that are nonreflective and destruc- undergraduate students received a small atnount
tive, the model identifies as "distorted." The of class extra credit for their participation. The
model further proposes that of the three emo- graduate students were requested to "help out"
tional elements (physiological activation, cogni- other students in the same graduate research
tion, and expression), it is where the cognitive methods course who were collecting data for one
and expressive elements fall along the reflec- of several research projects.
tive/nonreflective and constructive/destructive
Procedures and Materials
dimensions that determine the moral location of
Participants arrived individually at a campus
an emotional experience. Physiological activation
lab. They were greeted by one of the researchers
is assumed to be morally neutral in emotional
and given a five-page questionnaire. Participants
experience.
were asked to read the first page of the question-
Thus, the ACE model proposes that there is no
naire which gave a general review of the proce-
definitive list of emotions that are spiritual and
dures and served as a consent form. Included in
emotions that are not. There is no definitive list of
the review was a reminder that physiological
emotions that are always functional and emotions
measures would be taken during the study. If
that are always not. Instead, Christians need to be
participants agreed to continue to participate,
discerning. Any emotion can please or displease
then they signed the consent form and it was
God. Or, to put this idea another way, no emo-
detached from the questionnaire. At that point
tion will always please God.
the equipment for measuring heart-rate was
The purpose of this study was to test the
attached. The researcher then engaged the partic-
assumption made by the ACE model that what
ipant in reading and rereading a grocery list (the
separates functional from dysfunctional (righ-
same list for all participants); while a one-minute
teous from sinful) emotional experiences are the
baseline measure for heart-rate was established.
cognitive and expressive elements, not physio-
logical activation. In this study, students were Following the baseline for the physiological
asked to recall a past experience with functional measure, the participant then proceeded to the
or dysfunctional anger. Before and after the rec- second page of the questionnaire. On this page,
ollection heart rate was monitored. Following participants provided some basic demographic
the recollection, students evaluated the experi- information and responded to a modified version
ence along dimensions designed to tap the cog- of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
nitive and expressive aspects of the emotional (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). This
experience. Consistent with the ACE model of scale is designed to assess emotional state. Partic-
emotion, it was predicted there would be mean- ipants were asked to estimate the extent to which
ingful differences between functional and dys- emotional words (e.g., interested, scared, proud,
functional experiences within the cognitive and jittery, etc.) characterized how they felt at that
expressive domains but not within the physio- moment. Individuals responded to each word on
logical activation domain. a 3-point Likert-like scale (1 = very slightly or not
at all, 5 = extremely). Given that we intended to
Method then ask participants to recall a past anger expe-
rience, we modified the PANAS by adding the
Participants
emotional words "happy" and "angry."
Thirty-six individuals were recruited to partici-
pate in the study from graduate and undergradu- Participants then moved to the third page of the
ate classes (participation rate = 88%). All questionnaire. Each participant was asked to write
participants were informed in advance that they about a past anger experience. Half of the partici-
would be asked to recall and evaluate a past pants were randomly assigned to recall a func-
anger experience. They were further informed tional anger experience and the other half were
198 THE ACE MODEL OF EMOTIONS: WHAT SEPARATES RIGHTEOUS AND SINFUL EMOTIONS?
randomly assigned to recall a dysfunctional anger asked participants to estimate the emotional
experience. The instructions clarifying these two intensity of the recalled anger experience. The
different types of anger are presented below. remaining 12 items were designed to tap dimen-
sions that the researchers thought might separate
Try to think of an event where you
functional from dysfunctional anger. All of the
believe that your anger was a reason-
items from this page of the questionnaire are
able and correct response where, in
presented in Table 1.
retrospect, it might have been wrong
not to get angry. Perhaps it was a sit- The final page of the questionnaire contained
uation where your anger motivated the modified PANAS scale. This allowed us to
you to do the right thing. For exam- have a post measure of affective state. Individuals
ple: you and your best friend got into again responded to each word describing feeling
a fight because your friend lied to states on a 5-point Likert-like scale (1 = very
you. Because of your anger, you slightly or not at all, 5 = extremely). Once partici-
were able to confront your friend in pants completed this last page, they were
a constructive fashion, (functional) detached from the physiological monitoring
equipment and thanked for their participation.
Try to think of an event where you
believe that your anger was not the Resiilts
reasonable and correct response
One preliminary, but important, issue involved
where, in retrospect, it might have
the extent to which participants were able to
been wrong to get angry. Perhaps it
recall anger experiences that fit the requested
was a situation where your anger
functional and dysfunctional categories of anger.
motivated you to do the wrong thing.
The mean "fit" score for the functional anger
For example: you and your best
group was 5.1 iSD = .73). The mean score for the
friend got into a fight because your
dysfunctional anger group was 5.0 iSD = .69).
friend lied to you. Because of your
Since the highest possible score was 6.0, both
anger, you said some things to your
groups seemed to report that their recalled expe-
friend that were unnecessarily hurtful
riences fit well the type of experience requested.
and you later regretted saying those
In fact the lowest "fit" rating given by any partici-
things, {dysfunctional)
pant was a "4" in both groups (above the mid-
Participants were asked to recall an event by point of the scale). A one-way ANOVA indicated
writing about the event. It was thought that writ- that there was not a difference between the aver-
ing about the event would allow participants to age "fit" ratings for the functional and dysfunc-
more graphically re-experience the event. In addi- tional anger groups [F(l, 34) = .05, ns].
tion, writing about the event protected the confi- An important analysis for this study involved
dentiality of the participant. After providing a the comparison of dysfunctional and functional
written account of the event, participants anger regarding level of arousal. The ACE
detached that page from the questionnaire and model predicted no differences in arousal
took it with them after the study was completed. between the two types of anger. The physiolog-
Participants had been informed in advance that ical measures of arousal were the baseline aver-
they would be free to keep their written recollec- ages for heart-rate and the treatment averages
tions. As a result, the researchers were never for heart-rate (taken while participants were
exposed to the recollection of the event. While recalling their anger experiences). Both of these
participants were writing their recollections, a sec- measures were based on an average of heart-
ond one-minute measure of heart-rate was taken. rate measures taken over a one minute period.
Following the written recollection, participants These data were analyzed in two ways. First, a
then moved to the next page of the question- comparison was done between the two anger
naire. On this page, participants were requested groups on the baseline measure and then on
to evaluate the recalled anger experience using the treatment measure. The comparison
14 Likert-like items. The first of these items was between the two groups on the baseline mea-
essentially a manipulation check with partici- sure was nonsignificant [functional mean = 86.3
pants indicating the extent to which the recalled vs. dysfunctional mean = 79.6; F(l, 34) = 1.63,
anger experience was a "good fit" for the type of ns, eta = .21]. The comparison between the two
anger experience requested. The second item groups on the treatment measure was also
BASSETT, LUZADDER, MANLEY, MIANO, SANTORE, AND PUTNAM 199
Table 1
Mean Responses to the Items Used to Evaluate Functional and
Dysfunctional Anger Experiences
The anger experience I recalled was a 5.1 5.0 .82 .04
good fit for the type of experience
requested.
As I recall the situation, the anger I A.6 5.2 .17 .23
experience at the time was very intense.
I believe I relied upon God to help me 3.2 2.9 .53 .01
navigate this experience.
Other people were negatively affected 3.3 4.6 .01 .43 •
by this experience.
My anger was triggered by a concern 2.7 3.2 .35 .16
about the well-being of others.
I find that I still think about that event, 3.8 4.4 .24 .20
and those thoughts give me a sense of
dissatisfaction.
I would say the short-term outcome of 3.3 2.3 .03 .36
this experience was positive.
I would say the long-term outcome of 4.1 3.4 .15 .08
this experience was positive
I believe I have grown spiritually as a 3.7 3.3 .47 .12
result of this experience.
I believe my reaction was appropriate, 4.6 4.0 .19 .22
given the circumstances.
I'm afraid I said and did things during 2.7 3.5 .04 .34
that experience that I now regret.
During the midst of the experience, 3.4 4.6 .02 .38
my feelings were out of control.
In my anger, I said appropriate things 4.3 3.5 .06 .32
to the other person.
While I was angry, I was still concerned 4.1 3.8 .68 .07
about the well-being of the person with
whom I was angry.
'Shaded rows indicate the difference between the two types of anger met traditional levels of significance (p < .05).
nonsignificant [functional mean = 93.7 vs. dys- Second, an analysis of covariance was conduct-
functional mean = 85.0; 7<'(1,34) = 2.37, ns, eta - ed using multiple regression with the baseline
.26]. Even if more liberal levels of alpha were measure of heart rate as the covariate. The criteri-
adopted (e.g., p = .10), neither analysis would on variable in this analysis was the treatment
have been statistically significant. If effect sizes measure of heart rate. A forward stepwise strate-
are considered for these analyses (eta), then gy was then adopted for introducing the predic-
according to the criteria presented in Rosenthal tor variables (baseline heart rate and the two
and Rosnow (1984), the effect sizes for both anger groups). The first predictor variable
analyses would be identified as "small." entered into the equation was baseline heart rate
200 THE ACE MODEL OF EMOTIONS: WHAT SEPARATES RIGHTEOUS AND SINFUL EMOTIONS?
{beta = .88, adjusted R Square = .78, standard We also looked at the correlations within the
error of the estimate = 8.07). The other predictor different evaluations for functional and dysfunc-
variable, type of anger, did not meet the criterion tional anger. The significant correlations for each
(set at alpha = .10) for being entered into the type of anger are reported in Table 2. It is worth
equation. In fact, the type of anger only account- noting that the degrees of freedom for these
ed for 2% (partial correlation = < -.15) of the vari- analyses were relatively small (n = 18 for each
ability in treatment heart rates. Thus, both type of anger). Therefore, only rather large cor-
analyses revealed no significant differences in relations (r > .45) reached traditional levels of
heart-rate between the functional and dysfunc- significance. Of these significant relationships,
tional anger groups. three especially stand out because the same pat-
tern of relationship was found for functional and
Participants were also asked to provide a sub-
dysfunctional anger. With both types of anger:
jective measure of arousal when they were asked
(a) having an increased belief they had relied
to rate the intensity of the anger experience after
upon God to help them navigate the anger expe-
they recalled the experience (see Table 1). On a
rience predicted a greater sense of having grown
6-point scale, the functional anger group gave an
spiritually from the experience, (b) the tendency
average intensity rating of 4.6 while the average
of participants to believe their reactions were
intensity rating for the dysfunctional anger group
appropriate predicted lower tendencies on the
was 5.2. A one-way ANOVA revealed that the dif-
part of participants to believe they did things
ference between these average intensity ratings
during the anger experience that they now
was nonsignificant IF(1, 34) = 1.94, ns]. Again, the
regret, and (c) as ratings of loss of self-control
effect size was small (eta = .17). Thus, both objec-
increased participants tended to indicate
tive and subjective measures of arousal seemed to
decreased levels of being concerned about the
indicate that there were no differences between
well-being of the other person during the anger
the two types of anger.
experience.
However, the ACE model also suggests that
Finally, we analyzed the emotional state ratings
there will be differences between functional and
given before and after the recall of the anger
dysfunctional anger in the cognitive and expres-
experience on the PANAS. Our version of the
sive realms. So, in what ways were the two
scale requested participants to respond to 22
types of anger different? Table 1 presents a sum-
words capturing feelings/emotions were charac-
mary of the evaluations of functional and dys-
teristic of them at that point in time. To simplify
functional anger provided by the participants.
the analyses, five words were identified that
Comparing the average responses for functional
seemed to particularly speak to the experience of
and dysfunctional anger using one-way
anger (distressed, upset, hostile, irritable, and
ANOVAs, four of the evaluations were signifi-
angry). Cronbach's alpbas seemed to indicate
cantly different. With dysfunctional anger, partic-
these words had good internal reliability (pre-
ipants were more likely to report that other
measure, alpha = .85; postmeasure, alpha = .89).
people were negatively affected by the experi-
So, "pre" and "post" composite measures were
ence [F{1, 34) = 7.56, p < .01]. With functional
created by averaging the scores for these words
anger, participants were more likely to indicate
for each participant. A repeated measures one-
that the short-term outcome of the experience way ANOVA indicated a significant difference
was positive IF(.1, 34) = 5.04, p < .05]. With dys- between the composite measures, F(\, 34) =
functional anger, participants were more likely 25.66, p < .001 (premeasure mean = 1.63, post-
to share that they said and did things during the measure mean = 2.42). Thus, after the recall of
experience that they now regret IFil, 34) = 4.38, an anger experience, participants reported
p < .05]. Also with dysfunctional anger, partici- greater negative affect than before recalling that
pants were more like to indicate their feelings experience. However, the average amount of
were out of control during the experience [Fil, negative affect reported after recalling the experi-
34) = 5.65, p < .05]. Finally, there was a ence fell towards the middle of the 5 point
marginally significant difference between the response scale.
two types of anger. Participants recalling func-
Discussion
tional anger had more of a tendency to indicate
they said appropriate things to the other person Participants were asked to recall a past anger
[Fa, 54} = 5.76, .05>p< .10]. experience that was functional or dysfunctional.
BASSETT, LUZADDER, MANLEY, MIANO, SANTORE, AND PUTNAM 201
Table 2
Significant Correlations between the Participant Evaluations of their
Functional or Dysfi^nctional Anger Experiences
msimimm mmLu mm>n asdig iisgfl,^
Eval. 1: As I recall the situation, the anger I experienced
at the time was very intense.
Eval. 2: I believe I relied upon God to help me navigate
this experience.
Eval. 3: Other people were negatively affected by this
experience.
Eval. 4: My anger was triggered by a concern about the
well-being of others.
Eval. 5: I fmd that I still think about that event, and those .57* -.63"
thoughts give me a sense of dissatisfaction.
Eval. 6: I would say the short-term outcome of this
experience was positive.
Eval. 7: I would say the long-term outcome of this -.60** .54*
experience was positive.
Eval. 8: I believe I have grown spiritually as a result .57*
of this experience. .81**
Eval. 9: I believe my reaction was appropriate, -.57*
given the circumstances.
Eval. 10: I'm afraid I said and did things during .47*
that experience that I now regret.
Eval. 11: During the midst of the experience, my
feelings were out of control.
Eval 12: In my anger, I said appropriate things to the
other person.
Eval. 13: While I was angry, I was still concerned about
the well-being of the person with whom I was angry.
Correlations in regular type = functional anger, correlations in italics and bold = dysfunctional anger.
'p<.05 "p<.01.
Table 2 continues next page
Before and after (or during) recalling the expe- It is true; the design of our study put us in an
rience, heart-rate and emotional state were interesting position. Logically, it is difficult to
assessed. In addition, participants were asked support the null hypothesis (in this project, the
to evaluate the anger experience on several prediction of no differences in arousal for the
dimensions. An important finding of this project two types of anger): The reason for this difficul-
was that the levels of physiological arousal for ty is that several things can account for non-
the functional and dysfunctional anger experi- significant differences between groups. So, let's
ences were not significantly different. Equally consider some of those possibilities. One possi-
important for the predictive validity of the bility is that the manipulations simply did not
model was the existence of significant differ- work. That seems unlikely since the negatively
ences between the two types of anger in the valenced words on the PANAS showed
cognitive and expressive domains. Thus, the increased values after the manipulation were all
combination of nonsignificant and significant negative in connotation. Another possibility is
differences discovered in this study was consis- that the manipulations worked, but not as
tent with the ACE Model. hoped. That also seems unlikely since the self-
202 THE ACE MODEL OE EMOTIONS: WHAT SEPARATES RIGHTEOUS AND SINEUL EMOTIONS?
Table 2 (continued)
Significant Correlations between the Participant Evaluations of their
Functional or Dysfunctional Anger Experiences
. '. ; • t it
Eval. 1: As I recall the situation, the anger I experienced
at the time was very intense.
Eval. 2: I believe I relied upon God to help me navigate
this experience.
Eval. 3: Other people were negatively affected by this
experience.
Eval. 4: My anger was triggered by a concern about the
well-being of others.
Eval. 5: I find that I still think about that event, and those
thoughts give me a sense of dissatisfaction.
Eval. 6: I would say the short-term outcome of this
experience was positive.
Eval. 7: I would say the long-term outcome of this .48
experience was positive.
Eval. 8: I believe I have grown spiritually as a result .12"
of this experience.
Eval. 9: I believe my reaction was appropriate, .66**
given the circumstances.
Eval. 10: I'm afraid I said and did things during
that experience that 1 now regret.
Eval. 11: During the midst of the experience, my
feelings were out of control.
Eval 12: In my anger, I said appropriate things to the
other person.
Eval. 13: While I was angry, I was still concerned about
the well-being of the person with whom I was angry.
Correlations in regular type = functional anger, correlations in italics and bold = dysfunctional anger.
•p<05 "p<.m.
Tabie 2 continues next page
reported indications of how well the recalled comparisons between the premeasures for both
anger experiences fit the requested anger experi- types of anger and the postmeasures for both
ences were quite high for both types of anger. types of anger were not significantly different.
Finally, another possibility is that the lack of sig- However, comparisons between the pre and
nificant differences reflected insufficient statisti- postmeasures for functional anger were signifi-
cal power for the analyses. Again, that seems cantly different [preM = 86.3 vs. postM = 93.7,
unlikeily. With the self-ratings evaluating the Fil, 17) = 8.85, p < .01] as were the comparisons
anger experience, four out of thirteen of the self- for the pre and postmeasures for dysfunctional
ratings showed statistically significant differences anger [preM = 79.6 vs. postM = 85.0, F(.l, 17) =
between the two types of anger (and there was 32.61, p < .001]. It is important to note that these
one marginally significant difference). Concerns statistically significant comparisons were based
about the possibility of low power among the on the same sample sizes as those of the non-
evaluations would have been more convincing if significant analyses. Apparently, the heart-rate
fewer of the evaluations had shown significant analyses also had sufficient statistical power.
differences. With the heart-rate analyses the Thus, perhaps the most reasonable explanation
BASSETT, LUZADDER, MANLEY, MIANO, SANTORE, AND PUTNAM 203
Table 2 (continued)
Significant Correlations between tbe Participant Evaluations of their
Functional or Dysfimctional Anger Experiences
Eval. 1: As I recall the situation, the anger I experienced
at the time was very intense.
Eval. 2: I believe I relied upon God to help me navigate
this experience.
Eval. 3: Other people were negatively affected by this
experience.
Eval. 4: My anger was triggered by a concern about the
well-being of others.
Eval. 5: I find that I still think about that event, and those
thoughts give me a sense of dissatisfaction.
Eval. 6: I would say the short-term outcome of this
experience was positive.
Eval. 7: I would say the long-term outcome of this
experience was positive.
Eval. 8: I believe I have grown spiritually as a result
of this experience.
Eval. 9: I believe my reaction was appropriate,
given the circumstances.
Eval. 10: I'm afraid I said and did things during -.71"
that experience that I now regret.
Eval. 11: During the midst of the experience, my
feelings were out of control.
Eval 12: In my anger, I said appropriate things to the .74" -.56*
other person. .54
Eval. 13: While I was angry, I was still concerned about -.55*
the well-being of the person with whom I was angry. .49*
Correlations in regular type = functional anger, correlations in italics and bold = dysfunctional anger.
•p<.05 "p<.01.
for the nonsignificant differences in arousal significant difference between the two types of
between functional and dysfunctional anger is anger for long-term outcomes. One way to
that there simply are no differences in arousal explain this lack of difference for the long-term
between functional and dysfunctional anger. outcomes would be the perception that over the
Of course, one of the wonderful things about long-term people who experienced dysfunctional
research is that typically the researcher ends up anger perceived God as using that experience to
with more questions to consider. For this study, help them to mature. Yet, the data do not seem to
one of those questions is the issue of short-term fit that explanation. Perceiving that the long-term
and long-term outcomes for the different types of outcome was positively connected with believing
anger. Participants reported significantly more that God had used the experience to mature the
positive short-term outcomes for functional than individual occurred only with the functional ver-
dysfunctional anger. However, there was not a sion of anger. With dysfunctional anger, there was
204 THE ACE MODEL OF EMOTIONS: WHAT SEPARATES RIGHTEOUS AND SINFUL EMOTIONS?
not such connection. So, what diminished the gap References
between functional and dysfunctional anger expe- Bassett, R. L., & Hill, P. C. (1998). The ACE Model of
riences regarding long-term outcomes? emotion: Living Jesus Christ while experiencing emo-
Another interesting question is what might be tions. Journai ofPsychoiogy and Theology, 26, lil-lAd.
the next step in this line of research? Several pos- Ellis, A. (1976). Healthy and unhealthy aggression.
sibilities come to mind. For example, this study Humanitas, 12, 239-254.
seems to confirm the ACE Model assumption that Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Essentials of
levels of arousal does not differentiate functional behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New
from dysfunctional anger. However, does this York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
assumption also apply to other emotions? Are Solomon, R., & Stone, L. D. (2002). On "positive"
and "negative" emotions. Journal for the Theory of
levels of arousal similar for functional and dys-
Social Behavior, 32, All-AiS.
functional love, fear, etc.? Another direction might
Tangney, J. P. (1990). Assessing individual differ-
be to map out those factors that do differentiate
ences in proneness to shame and guilt: Development
functional and dysfunctional emotions. The ACE
of the Self-Conscious Affect and Attribution Inventory.
Model proposes that it is the "cognitive" and
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 102-
"expressive" aspects of emotion that will separate
111.
functional and dysfunctional versions of an emo-
Tangney, J. P. (1995). Shame and guilt in interper-
tion. Charting these differences across various sonal relationships. In J. P. Tangney & K. W. Eischer
emotions might allow us to discern which differ- {"Eds^, .Self-conscious emotions: Shame, guilt, embar-
entiating factors are common across most emo- rassment, and pride ipp. 114-139). New York: Guilford
tions and which differentiating factors are unique Press.
to a particular emotion. So, resolving quickly an Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., Hill-Barlow, D.,
emotional state might be characteristic of func- Marschall, D. E., & Gramzow, R. (1996). Relation of
tional "negative" emotions (like anger), but not of shame and guilt to constructive versus destructive
functional "positive" emotions (like love). responses to anger across the lifespan. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 70, 797-809.
But it is probably good to end with a word of
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988).
caution. The methodology of this study involved
Development and validation of brief measures of posi-
the recollection of anger experiences. Frankly,
tive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of
part of the rational behind that methodology was
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
the researchers were hesitant to inflict anger on
participants (particularly dysfunctional anger).
Therefore, the researchers settled for rekindling Authors
previous anger experiences from memory. There Rod Bassett is on the faculty of Roberts Wesleyan Col-
may be important ways in which the original lege (RWC). The other authors were, at the time of this
experience differed from the recalled experience. study, students at RWC.
