Burns begins the chapter by asking people how irritable they are; their ‘irritability quotient.’ We can measure this by how much we become frustrated or overreact to things that disappoint us. On page 149 - 153, he provides a questionnaire that presents situations and we are to rate how upsetting those circumstances would make us feel. We then compare our score to see how angry in general we are. (149) 

          Historically, mental health professionals viewed anger as something that either turned inward or outward. The internal manifestation of anger lacked empirical evidence but Freud believed it led to a form of internalized aggression developing into guilt or depression. The outward expression is when one ventilates their feelings towards others in society. The cognitive approach towards anger is to simply not create it in the first place. There is no need to hold it in or burst it out if it doesn’t exist. Burns goes through the pros and cons of experiencing anger and whether it is in our self-interest. The goal is for us to gain control over our feelings and prevent being overwhelmed by irritability and frustration. (153) 

          Some may believe that it is other people or external events that make us or are the cause of our anger. Burns would say we are fooling ourselves believing that other people make us angry. Burns states, “No matter how outrageous or unfair others might appear to you, they do not, never did, and never will upset you…you’re the one who’s creating every last ounce of the outrage our experience.” (154) 

          Burns reminds us that all of our emotions are created by our cognitions, including anger. On page 155, Burns shows a diagram of the relationship between the world, other people, us, our thoughts, emotions and behaviour. Before we can experience any irritation from an event or a person, we have to be aware of it through our own interpretation first.  The feeling we have is a result of the meaning we give to the perception of our experiences, not the content within the experiences. (154) 

          The emotional reaction we have is completely dependent on the way we think about situations. Negative events in the world but our response to them is dependent on how we see them. The consequences of an emotional outburst are usually higher and not in our advantage because of the pain and suffering we inflict upon ourselves in contrast to that which caused our upsetness. Essentially, our anger is being caused by subtle distortions based in incorrect perceptions. Once we develop the skill of replacing these views in a more realistic and functional way, we will have greater self-control and become less angry. (156) 

          A common distortion in terms of anger is labeling others, the extreme form of overgeneralizing them as having a bad essence and directing our emotions and what the person “is.” This process uses the mental filter distortion by cataloging them in our mind in only a negative way and disqualifying the positive by ignoring the good things about them. Humans have a combination of positive, negative and neutral attributes so it is unreasonable to label a person as one thing. We can feel a sense of moral superiority through labeling and creating ourselves an unhealthy self-image leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy from polarizing the other person. (157) 

          We can become engaged in defending our self-esteem from perceived criticism or insults but the other person is not worthless even if we feel that way. It is untrue that we can raise our self-esteem by lowering others. It is only our own negative, distorted thinking that can reduce our self-respect. Burns says, “There is one and only one person in this world who has the power to threaten your self-esteem - and that is you.” (157) The solution lies in ending our inner aggressive self-criticism. (158) 

          The distortion, mind reading, when we create reasons why the other person was motivated to act in a certain way that satisfies our own explanatory purposes. These explanations are usually inaccurate because they do not represent what the other person was actually thinking or perceiving that motivated them. It is important that we reality test these assumptions of the thoughts of others. (158)

We can also be distorted in magnifying via exaggerating the importance of negative things, where the intensity and duration of our angry reaction will be out of proportion to the person or occurrence. (158) 

          Using the term ‘should’ or ‘shouldn’t’ can create a sense that other people did not conform to our expectations, creating a sense of frustration with them. Burns says, “ Before you can feel anger, you must necessarily make the interpretation you are entitled to get what you want in this situation.” (159) The unmet expectation is a representation of some injustice in the world that creates the feeling of anger in response. We are creating unnecessary frustration for ourselves when we impose perfectionistic expectations on others and believe they intended to harm us in such a way. We end up making ourselves miserable and upset because of what we believe the world is, instead of observing the world as it unfolds. (159) 

          Should statements can produce an irrational sense of entitlement to instant gratification that leads to rage or panic when our expectations are not met. Desires can be formulated in a moralistic way in the sense that if they are nice to people, they ‘should’ get what they want or appreciated. Other people’s agency and free will means they will act and think in any way they like which is not necessarily in the way you want them to. If someone uses anger in a manipulative or coercive way to get what they want, they end up polarizing the relationship and demotivate others from wanting to do things for you. No one likes to be controlled or dominated. Anger most often limits our ability to be creative and discover different possibilities to solve problems. (159-60) 

          The root of anger, according to Burns, is in the perception of unfairness or injustice as the emotion that is tied to a correspondence with a belief of being treated this way. Burns respond to this view by stating that universal fairness and justice do not actually exist. They are both relative and dependent on the observer. What is perceived fair to one person is not to another. Cultures vary on social rules and moral structures. Burns states, “Who is right? There is no ultimate or universal answer to this question because there’s no ‘absolute fairness.’” (161) Our sense of fairness is based on our perception and interpretation of an abstract notion relative to a self-centered concept. (160-1) 

          Burns does not believe in personal, social or moral codes being objective facts in terms of statements or judgments about fairness. Social rules are accepted by members of a particular group that enhance the self-interest of the members of that group. If one does not account for the feelings or interests of others, they will feel taken advantage of and retaliate. (161)

          The definition of fairness can vary and some behaviour may be accepted by some and not others. If rules are accepted unanimously they can become a moral code and later a law but even then they are not necessarily absolute or universal systems with ultimate validity in all circumstances for all people. Our anger often results when our personal wants conflict with moral codes, resulting in perceiving others as acting unfairly. They may be acting from a different frame of reference that is not unfair relative to the standards they are using. (161-2) 

          The sense of ‘fairness’ is based on the perception of a universal standard that everyone ascribes to. Unfairness would be when someone does not follow that assumed standard, but is actually working from their own understanding of a standard of fairness. Burns says that for a universal standard to exist it would mean that everyone’s morality would be the same, and it is not. Everyone has their own perception and thinks differently. Others can feel insulted and become defensive if we label them as being unfair and end up polarizing our interaction. (162) 

          Fairness’ relativity has a logical fallacy when we impose our standard on others that our anger is derived from. We judge others acting unfairly based on their actions relative to our value system even though they are acting from their own value system. Their actions may seem reasonable and fair from their perspective. Burns states, “Do you want people to act fairly? Then…want him to act as he does even though you dislike what he does, since he is acting fairly within his system!” (162) Accepting that people act from within their own system of morality and perspective, we can make efforts to persuade them to change their attitude, standard or actions and ensure we don’t suffer regardless of what they do. (162) 

          Burns references Wayne Dyer who states, “Justice does not exist. It never has and never will.” (163) Dyer’s position is the negative extreme of an all or nothing position. In some instances, anger can be useful and it would be an overgeneralization to say it never works. Burns develops two guidelines to determine if anger is productive or not. 

          1. Is the anger directed towards a person who knowingly, intentionally, or unnecessarily acted maliciously? 

          2. Is anger useful here? Is it helping achieve a desired goal or is it destructive? 

 

          We can use anger in an adaptive way to motivate us to win or push harder but it can become maladaptive once we have achieved success or if it is harming others. If we have self-control and decide to use anger, as in alarming a child of the danger of the street, the magnitude and expression are adaptive and have a positive result. Hostility, in contrast, is impulsive, aggressive an uncontrolled. (163-4)

If there is nothing we can do about some injustice in the world we see, anger would be maladaptive as a response. Burns offers some methods to reduce our anger in situations when it is not in our interest. (164-5) 

​

          1. Develop the Desire: When we have already become mad, it can be very difficult to let it go from being consumed for revenge. Anger, as a moral emotion in response to perceived unfairness, makes it difficult to let go of righteous feelings leading us to defend and justify the emotion. Burns suggests we first use the double column technique of advantages and disadvantages, shown on page 166, of acting in a retaliatory way. Upon evaluating our aggressive action, determine what the costs and benefits are and whether being resentful is in our best interest. (165) 

          Performing this kind of cost/benefit analysis is the first step in coping with anger and if we can do without becoming angry we have begun a motivation towards change. Removing destructive anger can give us inner peace, self-esteem, and increase how effective we are with others. (167)

 

          2. Cool Those Hot Thoughts: Here, Burns asks us to write down the ‘hot thoughts’ coming to mind when we are angry. He then asks us to substitute ‘cool thoughts’ that are less upsetting and more objective with the double column technique. Attend to the antagonistic statements in our mind, record them without censoring anything, and substitute a more ‘cool,’ objective statement that entices less negative emotion. (167) 

          On page 168, Burns gives an example of the Hot vs Cool Thought double column technique. When we substitute the Cool for the Hot, we will most likely feel better. He also suggests using the Daily Record of Dysfunctional Thoughts chart, page 170, to describe what situation provoked us, and how to assess our anger before and after doing the exercise. (169) 

​

          3. Imagining Techniques: The negative aggressive thoughts in our minds are like the script of a movie projected in our minds. These mental pictures are a form of visualization that we can do with our eyes open or closed. These images are normal and part of the conscious illustration of our thoughts or memories. Our mental images can be the cause of great suffering or give us a boost of positive motivation depending on the perspective those images take. Anger can be fueled by reliving an incident through the visualization of mental imagery or remembering events in a negative way. (169-71) 

          Burns says, “You are the director and producer of the film now, and, what’s worse, you’re the only one in the audience.” (171) Depending on the images we project to ourselves we can be the main source of harm to ourselves. Burns suggests that we transform these negative images into ones that are less upsetting via humour. For example, instead of imagining acting violently towards someone, we can picture them as a big baby in diapers falling over on themselves. (171-2)

          The second technique Burns suggests is to stop the thoughts completely by thinking of something else. If the anger is not rewarded by being aroused from negative images, the emotion will be reduced in the future. In contrast to dwelling on a negative image, we can think about things that make us excited or happy. We can also engage in activities like exercising to take our minds away from negative visualizations. (172) 

​

          4. Rewrite the Rules: Sometimes we may have developed an unrealistic rule about relationships that disappoints our expectations often. We can feel entitled to a certain type of treatment from others and develop resentment when we do not receive that expectation. Burns states, “If you adopt a more realistic attitude, you can end your frustration. It’s much easier than trying to change the world.” (173) With a more realistic formulation of our expectation, we can have positive moods and not have our self-esteem compromised by other people. (172-3) 

          The principle of reciprocation is one expectation in the distortion ‘should’ that can cause problems in what we expect from others. Relationships are rarely perfectly reciprocal because people are different. Burns states, “Reciprocity is a transient and inherently unstable ideal that can only be approximated through continued effort. This involved mutual consensus, communication, compromise, and growth. It requires negotiation and hard work.” (174) When we put effort into our relationships, we may not get that back in the ways we want even if the person says they will. It is better to view reciprocity as a goal and not something that is assumed. (174)

          On page 175, Burns shows a chart of Self-Defeating ‘Should’ Rules and their revisions. He contrasts how we can revise our rules in realistic terms so that we are not disappointed and frustrated. We can replace ‘should’ with a hypothetical, if X happens then Y may occur. (175-6) 

​

          5. Learn to Expect Craziness: Burns takes our expectations and gets us to correspond them to what we observe from people and reality. This means that when someone frequently asks in some way, irrelevant of how we would want them to, it's better to expect the pattern we observe. If we impose unrealistic standards, standards that do not correspond to how people actually act, we will become disappointed. If we observe how people act and base our expectations on actual observations, we will know what to expect from them. (176-7) 

​

          6. Enlightened Manipulation: Not being angry and giving up expectations of others can make some people feel vulnerable that they will be taken advantage of and a reflection of a sense of inadequacy. (177) Burns references the psychologist, Mark Goldstein, who used behavioural conditioning to teach wives to reward good behaviour in their husbands instead of punishing unwanted behaviour. Burns states, “Punishment causes aversion and resentment and brings about alienation and avoidance.” (178) Switching to a reward model changed the dynamic of these relationships. By keeping records of their interactions, they distributed rewards and made sure the interaction was not perceived as a punishment by the other person. Shaping behaviour with the use of rewards can motivate people to want to be around you by focusing on the positive instead of the negative. (179-80) 

​

          7. “Should Reduction”: To master reducing the amount of ‘should’ expectations we impose on ourselves and others, Burns offers to make a list using the double column technique, page 181. We list all the reasons why another person ‘should’ have acted a certain way then challenge those expectations by understanding why they are unrealistic. (180) The reason for removing should statements has to do with the entitlement we assume from those kinds of perspectives or ideas. Burns states, “It is not true that you are entitled to get what you want just because you want it.” (181) People who do not meet our expectations are usually not trying to hurt us or make us angry. If we get angry, we most often end up polarizing the relationship. (182) 

 

          8. Negotiating Strategies: Being angry with others and creating inner turmoil is not the best way to influence them. To get success with others, being calm, firm and assertive is the best. Viewing the situation through a moralistic ‘should’ context can aggravate and polarize the situation evoking the other person to become defensive with counterattack. Burns reminds us that fighting is a form of intimacy. If our energy is not consumed by anger, it can be directed to getting what we want. (182) Burns offers the following effective negotiating principles:

          1. Compliment the other person on what they did right. Don’t ‘tell people off.’ Few people can resist being flattered so make an                  effort to find something good about them or their work. Then mention the problem and explain how it can be solved. (182-3) 

          2. Disarm them if they argue by finding a way to agree with them independent of how absurd the statements are, then                                  immediately…

          3. Clarify your point of view again in a calm and firm way. (183) 

It may be necessary to repeat these steps over and over in different combinations until a cooperative solution is reached. Ultimatums or threatening in an intimidating way are something to use only as a last resort. Be diplomatic when you express your views of the problem by not labeling them or being insulting. If you are transparent about any negative feelings you have, make sure not to magnify them in the language you use. (183) 

 

          9. Accurate Empathy: The best way to dissolve anger is through empathy. (184) Burns defines sympathy as the capacity to feel what another person is feeling. Being supportive is when we act in a tender, understanding way. Burns states, “Empathy is the ability to comprehend with accuracy the precise thoughts and motivations of other people in such a way that they would say, “Yes, that is exactly where I’m coming from!” (185) This knowledge allows us to understand and accept without being angry why others act in ways we do not like. It is our thoughts that create our anger, not the other person’s behaviour. Once we sense why another person is acting in some way, that awareness can often eliminate any distorted thinking that is creating anger. (185) 

          It can be very difficult to be empathetic because as humans we are trapped in our own perceptions and we have a tendency to automatically react in a negative way to the meaning of what others are doing. (185) Burns shows a role playing example on page 186 that can be to practice our skills at empathy. If we get angry, we can often get stuck in the jumping to conclusion, mind reading, distortion. (186-7) Even when the other person’s actions appear intentionally hurtful, empathy can be very useful. (187) Even when someone acts in a negative or harmful way, the meaning we attach to the experience is what causes our sense of grief and rage. Sometimes the meaning we have is based on a sense of entitlement, that we expect a certain kind of treatment from others or the world. We can be drastically disappointed when things occur that are different than what we expect. (189) 

          We can also personalize and use anger as a means to protect our self esteem when in actuality it may simply be other people’s distortions or actions that lead them to behaving in a way that is problematic. We are ultimately not responsible for other people’s actions. (189) On page 190, Burns tests someone using harsh distorted thoughts so that they could respond to the most difficult of comments and be prepared to be on their own. This training exercise showed that they were able to transcend this situation and not become upset by what occurred. Using empathy allowed them to protect their self-esteem. (191) 

​

          10. Putting It All Together: Cognitive Rehearsal: Anger can evoke reactive responses to situations without a deliberate, objective reflection of the situation. Anger is usually eruptive and episodic. Once we become aware of our state of mind, it is usually too late and we are already out of control. (191) 

          The ‘cognitive rehearsal’ method is a way to synthesize all of the techniques up until now by visualizing how we would deal with situations before we are actually in them. This allows us to vividly prepare for a better way of acting within a specific situation. Burns suggests making a hierarchical list of situations, example on page 192, that make us angry from low to high, then visualize our ‘hot thoughts’ from those situations, then develop ‘cool thoughts’ for each of them. (191-2) We then visualize being relaxed and unaffected as we tactfully, assertively and effectively respond to the situation. (192) 

          When we fantasize or visualize our performance of a situation, it prepares a script for us when we are actually in the moment. The first step is to master the visualization process in the most constructive, healthy way so that we can prevent ourselves from becoming upset in the moment. We are essentially programming ourselves to be assertive and relaxed when the actual situation confronts us. (193) 

 It is important to be aware that our expectations can manifest results from the self-fulfilling prophecy. This is where our belief can change our behaviour, making the outcome true even though it wouldn't have been if we believed things otherwise. We can create an expectation for both positive and negative outcomes so we are prepared for all conceivable possibilities, even though we are predisposed towards a positive one. (193) 

          Burns suggests that we approach all provocative situations that may trigger an angry response from us until we learn to think, feel, and act in a peaceful and effective way.  It is important to learn flexibility in our approach and use of techniques to account for what is unexpected. We also want to evaluate our progress incrementally as we notice improvement and not disqualify based on an all or nothing standard. We can also request our social group to offer feedback on our progress so that we can illuminate any blind spots we may have. (193) 

​

          Anger Principles: Burns concludes the chapter with ten things to know about anger. 

1. Events in the world do not make us angry, only our thoughts do. If a negative event occurs, the meaning we give that event determines how we respond emotionally. (194) When we accept responsibility for our anger, we gain an advantage in the opportunity of being in control and the freedom to choose our feelings. If we did not have this capacity, we would be helpless over our emotions and every emotional response to the world would be out of our control. (195) 

 

2. Most often anger is not helpful because it immobilizes us, becoming frozen in unproductive hostility. If we search for creative solutions instead, we will feel better. We can eliminate helplessness and frustration by thinking about what we can do to correct the situation or prevent the same circumstance from happening again. Resentment from a situation with no solution prevents us from experiencing joy. We can spend our time ruminating or thinking about some of our happiest moments. (195) 

 

3. Anger is most often created by distorted thoughts and correcting them will reduce the anger. (195) 

 

4. Anger is most often caused by the perception of being treated unfairly or an unjust event. Depending on the degree of international maliciousness we perceive, the intensity of our anger will be proportioned to that. (195) 

 

5. Learning to be empathetic via seeing the world through their eyes, can give realization to their actions are not unfair from their perspective. Unfairness is usually an illusion we created in our own mind. If we can let go of unrealistic concepts that truth, justice and fairness are shared by everyone, we will remove our frustration and resentment. (195-6) 

 

6. Others do not feel they deserve our punishment so when we retaliate it will not help us achieve our goals in our interactions. Rage and anger polarizes and deteriorates relationships from a self-fulfilling prophecy we have created. Short-term, temporary gains from hostile manipulation does not balance long-term consequences from resentment and retaliation. People do not like being controlled or forced to do things. Giving a positive reward works better. (196) 

 

7. Most anger is from a loss of self-esteem when we are criticized, disagreed with, or others do not behave how we want them to. This anger is always inappropriate because only our own distorted thinking reduces our self-esteem. (196) 

 

8. Being frustrated comes from expectations not being met. All events are part of reality therefore they are realistic even though we may have not expected them. All frustration results from unrealistic expectations. We can influence reality to make it closer to our expectation but it isn’t always practical. It is more often easier to change our expectations. (196) For example, some unrealistic expectations are: 

          a. I deserve what I want. 

          b. I should be successful with hard work. 

          c. Others should meet my expectations. 

          d. All of my problems should be solved quickly and easily. 

          e. Others will appreciate me if I am good to them. 

          f. Others should think and act like me. 

          g. Others should reciprocate if I am nice to them. (197) 

​

9. Even though we have the right to be angry, is it to our advantage to feel that way? How do we benefit from it? (197) 

​

10. Anger is not needed to be human. We would not be robots without anger. Without being angry, we can experience pleasure, productivity, enlightenment, and freedom. (197)