Sacred Violations, Perceptions of Injustice, and Anger in Muslims

Sacred Violations, Perceptions of Injustice,and Anger in Muslims

Allan Brown,1 Alexis Abernethy, Richard Gorsuch, andAlvin C. Dueck

Fuller Graduate School of Psychology

Anger has been at the center of religiopolitical conflicts and has been associated withwell-being. This study examined the role of Muslim anger in sociopolitical eventsperceived as a sacred violation. A Muslim sample (N = 151) identified adverse politi-cal events that have deeply affected them; and completed measures of anger, sacredviolations, perceptions of injustice, and religiousness. Sacred violations and percep-tions of injustice were associated with greater levels of anger, with sacred violationsbeing the stronger predictor. Post hoc analyses revealed that surrender problem-solving style increased anger control. The findings provide broad support for theimportance of religious appraisals of adverse political events in Muslim anger.jasp_608 1003..1027

Several lines of research have examined the conditions that precede angerarousal, including physiological processes, cognitive appraisals, and socialforces. Recent discourses on anger reflect earlier debates of whether bodilyprocesses, rather than cognitive appraisals are primary determinants of anger(Berkowitz & Harmon-Jones, 2004; Clore & Centerbar, 2004; Roseman,2004; Smith & Kirby, 2004). Berkowitz and Harmon-Jones argued that angerfollows physiological processes, and that cognitive appraisal processes arenot necessary for the elicitation of anger. However, most of what we havelearned about anger comes from studies that have asked individuals toreport their responses to potentially provocative situations (e.g., Averill,1982; Scherer, 2001).

Studies of anger based on appraisal theories of emotion have concen-trated on appraisals, such as blocked goals (Scherer, 1988), attribution ofresponsibility and blame (Smith & Lazarus, 1993), and perceptions of eventsas unjust (Lazarus, 1991; Scherer, 2001). Yet, appraisal theorists do notexplicitly mention an injustice appraisal component. Injustice as a cause ofanger is only implied.

Justice researchers who focus on specific cognitions about just outcomesor situations have posited causal relations between perceptions of injustice

1Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Allan (Steve) Brown, PattonState Hospital, Department of Psychology, 3102 East Highland Avenue, Patton, CA 92369.E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

1003

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2010, 40, 5, pp. 1003–1027.© 2010 Copyright the AuthorsJournal compilation © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

and anger (Clayton, 1992; Keltner, Ellsworth, & Edwards, 1993; Mikula,1986; Miller, 2001; Scher, 1997). In general, these injustice studies havetended to emphasize distributive and procedural injustice. Although someresearchers have attempted to extend the consideration of injustice to thepolitical arena (e.g., Brickman, Folger, Goode, & Schul, 1981; Tyler, 1984),the focus has been on testing distributive injustice in economic affairs andrelationship between the individual citizen and the state.

Justice appraisals of political harm to one’s cultural values and beliefsmay be an important precursor of anger and aggression. Pargament, Magyar,Benore, and Mahoney (2005) suggested that righteous anger (i.e., angerdirected at the wrongdoing of the instigator for violations of the sacred) maybe helpful in understanding terrorists’ justification for violence. Their recentwork has also suggested that adverse events that are perceived as a sacredviolation have profound negative effects on well-being and health. The aimof the present study, therefore, is to examine whether (a) Muslims perceiveWestern political action toward them as religious violations; and (b) religionis an important added prediction in current Muslim anger. Expanding ourunderstanding of how religious and political contextual factors influenceMuslim anger will enrich our comprehension of current Muslim anger.

Theoretical Models of Anger

Several models of anger have been proposed. In most studies, cognitiveappraisal theories explain anger. However, cognitive appraisal theoriescenter on slights to personal identity and blocked personal goals, and fail totake into account the cultural and political context in which the stress occurs.A theory of grievance related to a social interactionist approach explainsanger as unjust treatment of an individual by another person. The anger islikely to be accepted when it is consistent with community standards thatdetermine when a person should be angry. This model offers a number ofpossible reactions by the grievant, including the following: do nothing,remove blame from the harmdoer, forgive the harmdoer, blame the harm-doer, or punish the harmdoer (Tedeschi & Nesler, 1993).

Nevertheless, unlike appraisal theories, the theory of grievance doesnot account for personal coping strategies. The model for the formationof anger and aggression considers sociocultural and coping factors(Kassinove & Eckhardt, 1995). It begins with the adverse perception of anevent that stimulates arousal and generates negative affect. Socioculturalforces, individual-difference factors, and memory structures of similarexperiences determine arousal or negative affect and guide individuals’responses and their use of positive or negative coping strategies to manage

1004 BROWN ET AL.

the adversity. Anger is the likely outcome of a negative coping strategy,whereas anger control is the likely outcome of a positive coping strategy. Theanger can be expressed outwardly (i.e., anger–out), inwardly (i.e., anger–in),or managed (i.e., anger–control). Anger held in persistently can lead toruminations and negative affect. An anger–out strategy can lead to emotionalaggression.

The present article draws on the social interactionist approach to angerand aggression and the model for the formation of anger and aggression.These models suggest that anger is formed on the bases of political harm;attributions of responsibility and blame; and cultural, personal, and copingpatterns. On these bases, people who perceive certain political events asoffensive to their religious beliefs might activate spiritual appraisal of theevent (e.g., sacred violations), which utilizes angry thoughts or images as aform of feelings and expression. Anger may also be formed if the individualperceives the event as an injustice. Religiously oriented individuals mayuse a religious problem-solving style as a coping strategy. These appraisals,in turn, could be modified by personal religious variables (e.g., intrinsicreligiousness).

Religiousness

Psychologists have offered contrasting views of the role of religiousness inpsychological functioning. Some have tended to attribute negative mental-health-related outcomes to religiousness (e.g., Ellis, 1980; Freud, 1927/1964);whereas, others have emphasized the positive influence of religiousnesson health and various aspects of psychological well-being (see Ellison &Levin, 1998; Gorsuch, 1988; Koenig, McCullough, & Larson, 2001; Miller &Thoresen, 2003).

Recent reviews on spirituality/religiousness and health have suggestedpossible explanations for the positive influence of religiousness (e.g., Miller &Thoresen, 2003). First, religion buffers external stress by providing the indi-vidual with a personal identity and by facilitating social support. Second, thepractice of religion enhances a person’s cognitive and behavioral response tostress that could include religious appraisal of stressors (Ellison & Levin,1998). However, religiousness may work against well-being. This operationof religiousness is understudied. A few studies have found a positive associa-tion between religiousness and negative emotions (e.g., Connor, Davidson, &Lee, 2003; Pargament et al., 2005). Religiousness may work negatively, posi-tively, or both in times of critical stress, or indirectly through other mecha-nisms. One aim of the present study is to examine if the relationship betweenreligiousness and a negative emotion such as anger may occur with religiouslysalient negative events.

SACRED VIOLATIONS AND ANGER 1005

Religiousness and Anger

Only a few studies have examined associations between religiousnessand anger (see Koenig et al., 2001). In a study examining religious effectson distress (Sung Joon & Johnson, 2004), anger was included as an other-directed emotion, as well as a self-directed emotion (i.e., depression, anxiety).The results showed that religiously committed African Americans tend to beless distressed because they have a greater sense of control and social supportthan do their nonreligious or less religious counterparts.

However, in assessing the relationship between spirituality, resilience, andanger in survivors of violent trauma, Connor et al. (2003) found a significantpositive association between spiritual beliefs (e.g., the existence of a spiritualbeing or God, the helpfulness of prayer) and anger. That is, greater levels ofspiritual belief were unexpectedly associated with greater levels of distress.Pargament et al. (2005) also found strong significant relationships betweenfeelings of anger, desecration, and negative religious coping. In addition,negative religious coping partially mediated the relationship between des-ecration and state anger.

Sacred Loss and Desecration

Beliefs in the sanctified parts of life or symbols provide individuals withreligious meaning (Pargament & Mahoney, 2002). Pargament et al. (2005)examined the impact of sacred loss and violation (i.e., desecration) in peo-ple’s lives. First, participants viewed the most significant negative events intheir lives in the last two years to be a sacred loss or a desecration, meaningthat they attached spiritual meaning to a critical event in their lives. Second,an event deemed a sacred loss or desecration tended to cause greater traumaand distress. Sacred loss emerged as a greater predictor of more severedepression and increased intrusive thoughts about the event, but producedgreater spiritual growth. On the other hand, desecration was predictive ofgreater anger, lower levels of posttraumatic growth, and avoidance.

Religious Motivation

Lazarus (1991) argued that if we wish to study the cause of an emotion, wemust study not only cognitive appraisal, but also motivation. Religious moti-vation has been shown to be a significant predictor of psychological adjust-ment. Intrinsic motivation (i.e., the desire to know, communicate with, andserve God) correlated negatively with anxiety (Schaefer & Gorsuch, 1991)

1006 BROWN ET AL.

and with depression and anxiety (Plante & Boccaccini, 1997) and positivelywith well-being (Wong-McDonald & Gorsuch, 2004).

Of particular potential for anger is intrinsic religious motivation. Onewould expect those with the most intrinsic commitment to react the most(Gorsuch, 1994). Given these findings of associations between religious moti-vation and emotions, and the assumption that cultural factors and learningexperience shape the anger experience (Kassinove & Eckhardt, 1995), wepropose that intrinsic religiousness is associated with appraisal of politicalevents and anger outcomes.

Religious Coping

In times of trouble, people use specific religious coping strategies that mayhave an immediate impact on health (Pargament, 1997). Pargament et al.(1988) proposed three styles of religious problem solving: collaborative (i.e.,the individual and God share responsibility for solving problems), deferring(i.e., the individual turns the problem over to God and waits for God torespond), and self-directing (i.e., the individual takes the initiative in solvinghis or her problem, rather than seeking help from God).

Wong-McDonald and Gorsuch (2000) suggested a separate factor inproblem-solving styles; that is, the surrender style. This style is characterizedas self-relinquishment, or losing one’s life in God. The individual activelychooses God’s will over his or her own will. This style may be a part ofMuslims’ submission to Allah. The word Islam, in fact, means submission tothe will of Allah and acceptance of His decrees for humanity (Rippin, 1990).Some Western authors have described this reliance on God’s will as beingfatalistic. But Muslim scholars (e.g., Abou El Azayem & Hedayat-Diba,1994) have explained that reliance on Allah’s will produces determinationand encourages self-control.

Religious problem-solving styles have been associated with positivemental and emotional health. The surrender style has been found to bepositively associated—and self-directing style to be negatively associated—with well-being (Wong-McDonald & Gorsuch, 2004). Religious problemsolving was also found to mediate the association between religious motiva-tion and anxiety (Schaefer & Gorsuch, 1992) and between intrinsic religious-ness and psychological competence (Hathaway & Pargament, 1990).

Negative Political Events

A number of adverse political events in the past 5 years have enragedMuslims. For example, a Newsweek article entitled “Gitmo SouthCom


Showdown” (Isikoff & Barry, 2005) alleged that U.S. interrogators at Guan-tanamo had desecrated the Qur’an. This allegation unleashed wide anti-U.S.protests in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and several other Arab and Muslim coun-tries. Also, the publication of cartoons portraying the prophet Muhammadas a bomb-carrying terrorist unleashed widespread anger across the Muslimworld. This reaction confirms that people understand major life eventsin terms of spiritual, as well as psychological, dimensions, as noted inPargament et al.’s (2005) study. These responses, in turn, may erode indi-viduals’ quality of life.

The Present Study

The primary purpose of this study is to describe and clarify the associa-tions among religiousness (i.e., intrinsic and religious problem-solving styles),sacred violations, injustice, and anger. Study hypotheses are as follows:

Hypothesis 1. Sacred violations will be associated with stateanger.

Hypothesis 2. Perceptions of injustice will be associated withstate anger.

Hypothesis 3. Sacred violations will be associated with stateanger above and beyond the effects of injustice.

Hypothesis 4. Surrender style will mediate the relationshipbetween state anger and anger–in.

Hypothesis 5. Self-directing style will mediate the relationshipbetween state anger and anger–out.

Hypothesis 6. The relationship between sacred violations andstate anger will vary, depending on levels of religiousness. Spe-cifically, higher levels of intrinsic religiousness will increase theeffect of sacred violations on state anger.

Method

Sample

Study participants were 151 Muslims (39 women, 112 men) from 11different sites (e.g., mosques, Islamic centers, universities), mainly located in

1008 BROWN ET AL.

the Toronto, Ontario, Canada area. Participants’ overall mean age was 29.5years (SD = 11.1; men, M = 30.5; women, M = 26.8).

The sample was ethnically diverse (31% Indian/Pakistani, 27% MiddleEastern, 26% East African, 7% East Asian, 7% Caribbean, 1% Caucasian,and 1% ethnicity information missing). Of the sample, 14% were born inCanada, and 80% were born elsewhere (6% did not indicate their place ofbirth). The mean number of years for those living in Canada was 11.0(SD = 9.2). With regard to education, 21% had a graduate degree, 31% abachelor’s degree, 22% had some college, 22% had graduated from highschool, 4% had some high school, and only 1% had less than 9 years ofeducation. In addition, 58% were employed and 35% were students. Mostrespondents were single (64%), while 35% were married, and 1% weredivorced.

Measures

State–Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI-2). The Anger Expres-sion Scale (Spielberger & Reheiser, 2003) is a 57-item measure designed tomeasure the experience, expression, and control of anger. The measure con-sists of six scales: State–Anger assesses the emotional state associated with theexperience of current angry feelings; Trait–Anger assesses the extent to whichan individual experiences anger over time; Anger–Out assesses the tendencyto express anger outwardly through physical or verbally aggressive behavior;Anger–In measures the extent to which individuals suppress their anger orturn it inward; Anger Control–Out measures the extent to which individualsmanage the outward expression of angry feelings toward other personsor objects; and Anger Control–In measures the extent to which individualsmanage angry expression by calming down. Internal consistency reliabilitiesranging from .73 to .94 have been documented (Spielberger, Reheiser, &Sydeman, 1995). In the present study, Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .65to .92.

Perceived injustice (PI). The Perceived Injustice Scale (Mikula, 2003) con-sists of 12 questions that correspond to six variants of injustice: perceivedinjustice (1 item), violation of entitlement (2 items), control (2 items), inten-tion (2 items), perceived lack of justification (2 items), and attributions ofcausality (3 items). Each question was rated on a 7-point scale ranging from1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Higher scores indicate a higher level of PI.

No psychometric properties were reported for this measure, apart frominter-item correlations for the attributions of injustice that had more thanone item. Given the low correlation among the attributions of injustice,internal consistency reliability was computed (a = .73).


Negative political events. The Negative Political Events Checklist wascreated for this study. It contains 20 negative political events involvingMuslims or Islam reported in the media in the past two years (e.g.,desecration of the Qur’an). Participants were asked to check whether theyhad experienced the event personally, if it had been experienced by someonethey knew, or whether they had just heard or read about it. Additional lineswere provided at the end of the checklist to allow participants to add anyevents that were not listed. Participants were also asked to rank the threeevents that affected them most deeply as Muslims.

Quality of life. Participants were presented a checklist containing quali-ties of life that could have been violated by the negative event (e.g., sense ofspiritual fulfillment, peace of mind, a physical object). Participants wereasked to check any quality-of-life issues that had been affected. Additionallines were provided at the end of the checklist to allow participants to add anyqualities of life that were not listed.

Sacred loss and desecration. The Sacred Loss and Desecration Scale(Pargament et al., 2005) is a 28-item questionnaire that assesses the degree towhich a negative life event is perceived as a loss or a desecration. Participantsindicated the degree to which each statement described their personal reac-tions to the negative event on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5(very much). Pargament et al. reported excellent internal consistency reliabil-ity for desecration (a = .92).2 Higher scores on this measure indicate anincreased sense of violation. Cronbach’s alpha obtained for sacred violationswas .93.

Religious motivation. The Intrinsic/Extrinsic (I/E) revised scale(Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989) consists of 14 items that assess the degree towhich a person endorses intrinsic religious (IR) motivations. Participantsresponded on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5(strongly agree). Higher scores indicate increased religiousness. Gorsuch andMcPherson reported internal consistency reliabilities for the intrinsic sub-scale (a = .83). In the present study, items with explicitly Christian phraseswere replaced (e.g., God with Allah; church with mosque). The Cronbach’salpha obtained was .65.

Religious problem solving. The State Measure of Religious ProblemSolving Styles (RPSS; Schaefer & Gorsuch, 1993) is an 18-item scale. Thescale is an adaptation of Pargament et al.’s (1988) Religious Problem-Solvingscale to evaluate situational and personal variations in religious coping.

RPSS measures three styles of religious problem solving: (a) a collabora-tive style (i.e., cooperation between the individual and God; a = .92); (b) aself-directing style (i.e., the individual takes responsibility for problem

2In the present study, references to God were changed to Allah.

1010 BROWN ET AL.

solving; a = .93); and (c) a deferring style (a = .88). Wong-McDonald andGorsuch (2000) added the Surrender Problem-Solving style (Surrender; i.e.,submitting to God’s way), which consists of 12 items and has excellentreliability (a = .94). Cronbach’s alphas for this study were .81 and .94 forself-directing and surrender, respectively.

Procedure

All scales were pilot-tested with adult participants from the Muslim com-munity prior to their use in the present study. The pilot feedback resulted inchanges in the wording of the introductory text on the first page of thequestionnaire.

The recruitment strategy included networking with influential Muslimsin the Middle East and in Toronto. The criteria for recruitment requiredthat participants be Muslim, aged 18 and older, and that they could com-plete the self-report questionnaires. The investigator informed participantsof the purpose of the study: to investigate their experience of angerin response to adverse political events. The participants were assured ofanonymity and were guaranteed the right to refuse to participate. Afterproviding their informed consent, participants voluntarily completed aquestionnaire packet.

Analyses

UniMult (Gorsuch, 1999) was used for the hierarchical regression analy-ses, and SPSS was used for all other analyses. Means and standard deviationswere calculated. The associations among the demographic and study vari-ables were tested and, when significant, were partialled out of the analyses.The same correlational analyses determined the relationship between sacredviolations and State–Anger (Hypothesis 1), and between perceptions of injus-tice and State–Anger (Hypothesis 2).

Partial correlation was used to examine the unique role of sacred viola-tions (Hypotheses 3). For all hierarchical multiple regression analyses, demo-graphic variables were entered in the equations if they were significantlyassociated with the dependent variable, followed by a separate regressionanalysis for each of the independent variables (IV) on the dependent variable(DV). The method recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986) was used totest the mediation hypotheses.

If the mediator canceled the effect of the IV on the DV, then the datasupported full mediation. If, however, the mediator reduced the effect of theIV on the DV, then the direct effect was partial mediation. A test developed


by Sobel (1982)—calculating the degree to which the indirect effect of the IVon the DV via the mediator is significantly different from zero—was also usedto assess the significance of the mediation. The percentage of the total effectsthat is mediated was estimated using procedures recommended by MacKin-non and Dwyer (1993).

For Hypothesis 4, State–Anger was the IV, surrender problem solvingwas the mediator, and anger–in was the DV. For Hypothesis 5, State–Angerwas the IV, self-directing problem solving was the mediator, and anger–outwas the DV.

Hierarchical regression analyses were used to test the interaction effects ofsacred violations and IR motivation on State–Anger (Hypothesis 6), usingthe method recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986). State–Anger was firstregressed on sacred violations; followed by IR; and, finally, the multiplicativeterm of sacred violations and IR.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the measures used in thepresent study. All scales demonstrated internal consistency reliability, withthe lowest being the IR, Anger–In, and Anger–Out scales. The mean State–

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables

Measure a M SD Observed range Score range

State–Anger .92 31.63 9.85 18–60 15–60Anger–In .65 16.41 3.48 8–28 8–32Anger–Out .70 14.53 3.35 8–28 8–32Sacred violation .93 49.12 14.56 14–70 14–70Perception of injustice .73 53.35 11.59 23–84 12–84Surrender .94 53.80 9.13 12–60 12–60Self-directing .81 9.46 5.10 6–30 6–30Intrinsic religiousness .65 34.26 4.10 21–40 26–58Anger Control–Out .82 23.55 4.57 10–32 8–32Anger Control–In .83 22.48 4.49 9–32 8–32

1012 BROWN ET AL.

Anger score was in the high range (M = 31.63, SD = 9.85) for both men(M = 32.62, SD = 10.63) and women (M = 30.23, SD = 7.13), in comparisonto Spielberger’s (1998) revised and expanded STAXI-2 normal sample of men(M = 19.47, SD = 9.04) and women (M = 18.17, SD = 5.50).

Of the participants, 15% reported extreme anger. The mean anger expres-sion scales were in the moderate range (Anger–In, M = 16.30, SD = 3.51;Anger–Out, M = 14.47, SD = 3.44). The mean sacred violations score was inthe high range (M = 49.86, SD = 14.68). Over 65% of participants’ scores fellabove the mean sacred violations score.

Demographic Analyses

Analyses of the relationships among demographic characteristics and thestudy variables reveal that site, age, gender, ethnicity, born in Canada,marital status, and education were significantly associated with various studyvariables. Older participants scored significantly higher on sacred violationsand perceptions of injustice than did younger participants. Women scoredlower than did men on measures of Surrender, IR, and Anger Control–Out.There were significant ethnic differences for IR, F(5, 143) = 2.74, p < .05; andSurrender style, F(5, 143) = 2.32, p < .05. However, post hoc analyses usingScheffé post test for IR and Surrender reveal no significant contrasts.

Indians’/Pakistanis’ scores for IR and Surrender were lower than those ofEast Africans, Middle Easterners, and East Asians. Participants who wereborn in Canada scored lower on sacred violations and perceptions of injusticeand higher on self-directing than did participants born elsewhere. Those whowere married scored significantly lower on measures of Anger–Out andhigher on sacred violations, surrender problem-solving style, and perceptionsof injustice. There was a significant difference between employed (M = 13.99,SD = 3.03) and unemployed (M = 15.24, SD = 3.66) participants on mea-sures of Anger–Out, t(148) = -2.26, p < .05. More educated participants hadlower scores on self-directing style than did less educated individuals. Moreeducated individuals also tended to score higher on measures of IR than didless educated individuals.

Hypotheses

The correlations between the study variables are presented in Table 2.As expected, the findings show a significant positive relationship betweensacred violations and State–Anger (Hypothesis 1; r = .31, p < .01). PI wasalso significantly positively related to State–Anger (Hypothesis 2; r = .29,p < .01).


Tab

le2

Cor

rela

tion

ofS

tudy

Var

iabl

es

Var

iabl

e1

23

45

67

89

1.St

ate–

Ang

er—

2.A

nger

–Out

.36*

*—

3.A

nger

–In

.23*

*.3

4**

—4.

Sacr

edvi

olat

ions

.31*

*.1

1.1

7*—

5.Se

lf-d

irec

ting

.24*

*.0

1.0

1-.

03—

6.Su

rren

der

.18*

.02

.19*

.31*

*.0

1—

7.In

just

ice

.29*

*.0

6.1

4.4

0**

.20*

.21*

*—

8.In

trin

sic

relig

ious

ness

.10

-.01

-.06

.28*

*-.

17*

.40*

*.0

8—

9.A

nger

Con

trol

–Out

-.16

*-.

29**

.00

.08

.04

.28*

*.2

7**

.21*

—10

.A

nger

Con

trol

–In

-.05

-.14

.06

.19*

-.06

.37*

*.2

7**

.29*

*.7

5**

Not

e.N

=15

1.*p

<.0

5.**

p<

.01.

1014 BROWN ET AL.

Partial correlation was used to examine the unique role of sacred viola-tions (Hypothesis 3). As expected, sacred violations added significantly to thevariance in State–Anger scores after the effect of PI was partialled out(r = .22, p < .01).

We expected that greater use of surrender would be responsible forgreater effects of the inward expression of State–Anger (Hypothesis 4). Theanalyses show that State–Anger added significant variance in Anger–In aftercontrolling for surrender (r = .20, p < .01). However, the significant positiverelationship between surrender and Anger–In (r = .19, p < .05) did notremain intact when State–Anger was partialled out (r = .15, p = .07). Thus,contrary to expectations, surrender did not account for the inward expressionof anger as a response to State–Anger.

Likewise, it was expected that Muslims who relied more on self in copingwith anger would tend to express their anger outwardly (Hypothesis 5).Although there was a significantly positive relationship between self-directingstyle and State–Anger (r = .24, p < .01), there was no relationship betweenself-directing style and Anger–Out. Thus, contrary to expectations, the con-ditions for mediation were not met.

Interaction effects examined whether the effect of sacred violations onState–Anger would depend on the individual’s religious motives (Hypothesis6). As noted previously, sacred violations correlated significantly with State–Anger. When State–Anger was hierarchically regressed on sacred violations,IR, and the Sacred Violations ¥ IR interaction simultaneously, only sacredviolations remained significant. Thus, Hypothesis 6 was not supported.

Correlations Among Study Variables

Exploratory analyses examined other relationships among the study vari-ables (see Table 2). Specifically, sacred violations were positively associatedwith Anger–In (r = .17, p < .05), and Anger Control–In (r = .19, p < .05).Perceptions of injustice were associated with self-directing (r = .21, p < .05)and surrender (r = .21, p < .01). Surrender was associated with AngerControl–Out (r = .28, p < .01).

Post Hoc Analyses

As the mediation and interaction hypotheses were not supported, the roleof IR and surrender problem solving was given further study. Religiouspeople may believe that through prayer and surrender to God’s will, God willrespond to their devotion, either by reversing the situation or by empowering


the individual to maintain control. Thus, we hypothesized that there wouldexist significant relationships between IR, religious problem solving (surren-der, self-directing), and anger control (control–in, control–out) with religiousproblem solving maintaining a mediating role in the relationship between IRand anger control.

Specific post hoc hypotheses were as follows:

Post hoc Hypothesis 1. Surrender style mediates the relation-ship between IR and Anger Control–In.

Post hoc Hypothesis 2. Surrender style mediates the relation-ship between IR and Anger Control–Out.

Post hoc Hypothesis 3. Self-directing style mediates therelationship between IR and Anger Control–In.

Post hoc Hypothesis 4. Self-directing style mediates the rela-tionship between IR and Anger Control–Out.

The mediating effects of surrender in the relationship between IRand anger–control are shown in Table 3. Surrender partially mediated the

Table 3

Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Religion Predicting Anger Control

Variable

Anger Control–In Anger Control–Out

r F r F

Order 1Gender .19* 5.34Intrinsic religiousness .31* 17.83 .19* 16.28Surrender .24* 10.20 .20* 6.43R .40 13.83 .33 6.14

Order 1Gender .19* 5.34Surrender .34* 20.49 .25* 10.62Intrinsic religiousness .19* 7.25 .11 2.10R .40 13.83 .33 6.14

Note. N = 151. Anger Control–In, df = 2, 148; Anger Control–Out, df = 3, 147.*p < .01.

1016 BROWN ET AL.

relationship between IR and Anger Control–In (post hoc Hypothesis 1).Anger Control–In was regressed on IR, followed by Surrender (Order 1). Theresults reveal that when Anger Control–In was regressed on IR and surren-der, surrender contributed significantly to the variance in Anger Control–Inwhen IR was partialled out. IR also added significantly to the variance inAnger Control–In when surrender was partialled out (Order 2). Thus, sur-render can be considered as partially mediating the relationship between IRand Anger Control–In. Sobel’s (1982) test confirms that the influence of IRvia surrender problem solving was significantly different from zero (Z = 3.00,p = .003). Computation of the percentage of the mediation effects shows thatsurrender accounted for 41% of the influence of IR on Anger Control–In.

Similarly, surrender partially mediated the relationship between IRand Anger Control–Out (post hoc Hypothesis 2). In these analyses, AngerControl–Out was regressed on gender, followed by IR, then surrender (Order1). The results show that when Anger Control–Out was regressed on surren-der, surrender problem solving added significantly to the variance in AngerControl–Out (Table 3). IR did not add significantly to the variance in AngerControl–In when gender and surrender were partialled out (Order 2). Thus,surrender can be considered as mediating the relationship between IR andAnger Control–Out. Sobel’s (1982) test confirms that the influence of IRvia surrender was significantly different from zero (Z = 2.43, p = .01). Com-putation of the percentage of the mediation effects shows that surrenderaccounted for 45% of the influence of IR on Anger Control–Out. Tests formediation of self-directing religious problem-solving style in the relationshipbetween IR and anger control were not conducted because the conditions forpotential mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986) were not met (i.e., self-directingreligious problem-solving style was not associated with anger control).

The political event reported to have had the most impact on Muslims inthe study was the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad(PBUH; 38%), followed by the alleged desecration of the Qur’an (12%).Table 4 shows the summary of negative political events. Table 5 summarizesthe aspects of life most commonly affected, such as peace of mind (64%),well-being (61%), and freedom to practice religion (56%).

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to examine the role of religious appraisalin the formation of Muslim anger in current political events. We started fromthe social interactionist approach to anger and aggression, and the model forthe formation of anger and aggression stating that anger is formed on thebases of political harm; attributions of responsibility and blame; and cultural,


Tab

le4

Neg

ativ

eP

olit

ical

Eve

nts

Eve

nt

Ran

k1

Ran

k2

Ran

k3

n%

n%

n%

Car

toon

sof

the

prop

het

Muh

amm

ad57

3824

1616

11A

llege

dQ

ur’a

nde

secr

atio

n18

1223

156

4O

ngoi

ngIs

rael

–Pal

esti

neco

nflic

t12

819

1318

12B

ody

sear

chat

airp

orts

117

139

107

Iraq

inva

sion

85

1510

2315

Abu

Ghr

aib/

Gua

ntan

amo

85

75

149

Stop

and

sear

ch7

57

52

1V

erba

labu

se6

46

414

9F

ullu

jah

offe

nsiv

e4

32

13

29/

114

30

00

0H

osti

lity

tow

ard

trad

itio

nalI

slam

icdr

ess

32

149

1611

Bur

ning

the

bodi

esof

Afg

han

fight

ers

21

64

75

Nei

ghbo

rsc

ruti

ny2

01

12

1A

mer

ican

troo

psin

Saud

iAra

bia

11

53

32

Wor

kpla

cesc

ruti

nyan

ddi

scri

min

atio

n1

11

18

5Su

ppor

tof

oppr

essi

vean

dco

rrup

tre

gim

esin

the

Mus

limw

orld

11

00

00

Ars

onat

tem

pton

abu

ildin

goc

cupi

edm

ostl

yby

non-

Cau

casi

ans

follo

win

g9/

111

10

00

0A

llega

tion

sth

atIs

lam

isa

fals

ere

ligio

n1

10

00

0H

osti

lity

tow

ard

bear

ds0

01

10

0I

was

unab

leto

get

cert

ain

jobs

beca

use

ofm

yhi

jab.

00

11

00

Secr

etpo

lice

visi

ted

my

hous

efo

ran

inte

rvie

w0

00

01

1

Not

e.N

=15

1.

1018 BROWN ET AL.

personal, and coping patterns. Drawing from this assumption, we examinedthe types of situations in which individual differences in appraisals particu-larly occur, and identified personal religious variables that may underlie suchdifferences.

The primary finding is that greater levels of anger are associated withMuslims’ perceptions of adverse political events as a sacred violation. Spe-cifically, angry feelings are elicited by spiritual appraisals as sacred violations.This finding is consistent with Pargament et al.’s (2005) finding of an asso-ciation between a measure of anger and perceptions of everyday life events(e.g., divorce) as a sacred desecration in an exclusively Caucasian, predomi-nantly Christian population. This study further reveals that anger expression(Anger–In) and control (Anger Control–In) are also associated with sacredviolations. Sacred violations seem to influence angry feelings, as well as thedirection and control of anger intensity. Participants, therefore, suppresstheir angry feelings by calming down, rather than through verbal or physicalreaction. These findings highlight the complexities involved in spiritualappraisal of political events. Further analyses (e.g., curvilinear) are needed toclarify the complexities of religious appraisals.

This sample of Muslims scored in the high State–Anger range, with 58%experiencing relatively intense angry feelings and 25% experiencing extremeanger. Muslim men scored consistently above women on all anger subscales.This is consistent with Novaco’s (1976) findings that men experience moreanger than women. Although Trait–Anger scores for both Muslim men and

Table 5

Effects of Negative Political Events on Quality of Life

Quality of life n %

Peace of mind 95 64Emotional well-being 91 61Freedom to practice religion 84 56Personal values 69 46Acceptance of others 67 45Hope and optimism 63 42Psychological well-being 61 41Kindness to others 57 38Inner peace 50 34

Note. N = 151.


women were lower than STAXI-2 normative sample Trait–Anger scores,they fell in the moderate range (Spielberger, 1998). Because State–Anger washigh and Trait–Anger was low, angry feelings are likely to be a reaction toadverse political events perceived as a sacred violation or an injustice, ratherthan a dispositional response to such situations.

Of the participants, 95% perceived the events as a sacred violation and90% perceived the events as an injustice in varying degrees. Thus, it appearsthat most Muslims in the general community consider spiritual and justiceimplications of current Western political action against them. Participantsborn in Muslim countries are no angrier than those born in Canada, but theytend to view the negative political events with significantly greater spiritualand justice motives.

The results also support our expectation of a positive relationshipbetween intensity of anger and perceptions of injustice. This result is consis-tent with a social interactionist perspective of aggression and violence, whichsuggests that attributions of blame and injustice lead to expressions of angerthat extend beyond the self to the social realm (Tedeschi & Nesler, 1993). Thepresent study also supports the findings of other studies that have treatedinjustice as a cognitive and affective component of anger (e.g., Mikula, 1986;Scher, 1997).

The significant relationship between PI and anger-control subscales indi-cates that these participants were attempting to control aggressive impulsesand to reduce the intensity of suppressed anger by calming down. Comparedto perceptions of sacred violations, participants tend to use both surrenderand self-directing problem solving when negative political events are per-ceived as an injustice. In the case of perceptions of injustice, the tendency ofindividuals to solve their problems (rather than seek help from God) mayaccount for increased self-efforts in anger control. Thus, although there wasno link between aggressive impulses (Anger–Out) and PI, the finding of anassociation between State–Anger and PI makes an important contribution tothe literature, in that the anger–injustice link is supported in a Muslimsample. Further, anger control may be shaped by the social context. Muslimsliving in Canada may deem it more costly to take action to restore justicethan Muslims living in Islamic countries. It follows that a “do-nothing”response by the victim may lead to rumination, increasing resentment, andaggressive behavior (Tedeschi & Nesler, 1993).

To understand how sacred violations and perceptions of injustice influ-ence anger is to explore their unique contributions. The relationship betweenState–Anger and sacred violations remained after controlling for PI. Sacredviolations were also predictive of Anger–In, whereas PI did not predictAnger–In. Therefore, sacred violations are a greater predictor of angerthan are perceptions of injustice in response to negative political events.

1020 BROWN ET AL.

Consideration may be given, therefore, to an expansion of the social inter-actionist perspective on aggression and violence to include political harm interms of sacred violations. Perhaps more than injustice, sacred violationsaffect the level of anger resentment an individual will experience if a grievanceis formed.

Muslim anger in the sociopolitical context is being experienced and inter-nalized, which may lead to health consequences. Muslims believe that theprophet, the Qur’an, and the land of Palestine are sacred. Portraying theprophet Muhammad as a bomb-carrying terrorist, the alleged desecration ofthe Qur’an, the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and other politicalevents (see Table 4) are perceived as sacred violations and as injustices thatevoke the most powerful associations with anger. These violations werereported to impact Muslims’ quality of life, including peace of mind, emo-tional well-being, freedom to practice their religion, and acceptance of others(see Table 5).

Religiousness plays a prominent role in Muslim anger. Sacred violationswere positively, significantly, and uniquely associated with surrender style.Participants tended to use surrender, rather than self-directing problemsolving when the event was perceived as a sacred violation. This style may bepart of submitting to God’s will (Wong-McDonald & Gorsuch, 2004). Theconnection of God’s will with surrender implies that the more Muslimsperceive adverse political events as sacred violations, the greater will be theirsubmission to Allah’s will. Yet Pargament et al. (2005) did not find a rela-tionship between desecration and positive coping (e.g., spiritual connectionand support) in a predominantly Christian sample. The different approachesof Muslims and Christians to desecration may mean that Muslims accepttimes of trouble as Allah’s providential will, whereas Christians tend toreappraise God’s power and experience spiritual discontent.

Surrender was shown to play an important role in the elicitation ofState–Anger and Anger–In. These findings suggest that Muslims tend torespond in a surrender style as anger is experienced and internalized. Positiverelationships between these anger components and surrender appear to becontrary to the model for the formation of anger and aggression, and thefindings of other studies. The model suggests that positive coping leads toanger control, rather than anger experience and expression (Kassinove &Eckhardt, 1995). Other studies have found inverse relationships betweenreligious coping and negative emotions (e.g., Plante & Boccaccini, 1997;Schaefer & Gorsuch, 1991).

The unexpected finding of a positive association between surrender andanger may reflect the role of religiousness and anger in stressful situations(Connor et al., 2003). It is also possible that negative life events perceivedas sacred violations lead to anger suppression and a strengthening of


surrendering to God’s will, which, in turn, may add to anger suppression.Contrary to Hypothesis 4, surrender apparently did not play a role in theassociation between anger experience and anger suppression. This findingsuggests that the effects of surrender on anger–in are independent of angryfeelings and may influence anger suppression. Further analyses or studies areneeded to clarify the effects of religious factors in anger and aggression,particularly in Muslims’ unique culture and sociopolitical context.

The finding of surrender as a mediator of IR in this Muslim sampleis consistent with past studies that involved Christian samples (e.g.,Wong-McDonald & Gorsuch, 2004). Surrender mediated the relationshipbetween IR and anger control. Thus, surrender problem solving helps reli-giously committed Muslims to manage their anger.

In sum, this study demonstrates that Muslims perceive Western politicalaction toward them as religious violations, and that religion is an importantadded predictor in current Muslim anger. The research focused on religious/spiritual and social appraisals of negative political events and their implica-tions for the experience and expression of anger. The findings provide apreliminary model for understanding the relationship between dimensions ofanger and religiousness in Muslims. The effects of political events and per-sonal religious motivation on anger experience and expression, and quality oflife may be mediated by perceptions of sacred violations, perceptions ofinjustice, and surrender problem solving.

Religious factors played a complex role in these relationships. They arenot only predictors of angry feelings, but also influence the direction andcontrol of anger. More broadly, this study underscores the important role ofreligion in Muslim understanding of adverse political events.

Study Limitations

The current study used theories and measures that were developed inWestern cultures, and religious scales that applied to Christian samples.These limitations may account for the moderate reliability coefficient onmeasures of anger expression and religious motivation. Some participantshad difficulty with English idioms (e.g., “simmer down”) and non-Islamicreligious terms (e.g., “sense of God’s presence”). These measures may need tobe tested further and modified to fit the target population.

Social desirability was not measured in this study, and participants mayhave presented themselves as righteous and peaceful without detection. Thesample consisted predominantly of men, representing a skewed genderdistribution. This research may not allow generalization of all findings tothe total Muslim population: The sample was limited to a community of

1022 BROWN ET AL.

Muslims residing in a Western country and may not reflect the responses ofMuslims worldwide.

Implications for Future Research

Further work is needed to understand the religious factors and emotionaldynamics in various Muslim communities. For example, both surrender andself-directing coping styles were positively associated with anger experience,whereas past studies have not shown that to be the case (e.g., Pargamentet al., 2005; Schaefer & Gorsuch, 1991). It would also be helpful to identifyindividual religious difference factors (e.g., extrinsic religiousness) that mayincrease or decrease anger in the face of adverse political events or sacredviolations. It would be informative to consider how perceived violations andanger responses differ between religious traditions, particularly when framedin terms of well developed organizing frameworks (e.g., terror managementtheory).

Longitudinal studies are particularly needed to assess the long-term effectsof anger suppression in response to sacred violation. Anger suppression maylead to clinical dysfunctional problems (e.g., depression) and negative physi-ological outcomes (e.g., elevation of pulse rate, higher blood pressure).

More substantial research studies and adequate surveys are needed tounderstand anger and religious coping strategies among Muslims. This maymean modeling new conceptual frameworks based on a deep knowledgeof Muslim faith, use of culturally appropriate measures, and an effectiverecruitment strategy. Researchers should include Muslim recruiters who arefamiliar with Muslim communities being targeted. At this time, Muslims feelharassed and under deep suspicion, and they are understandably cynicalabout psychological studies. However, investigations that are concerned withAllah and faith are more acceptable.

Despite the limitations of the present study, the results provide a timelyand important look at how Muslims cope with external political and spiritualstress. Understanding the spiritual and emotional effects of sociopoliticalstressors for Muslims will increase interpersonal sensitivity and culturalcompetence in working with this population.

References

Abou El Azayem, G., & Hedayat-Diba, Z. (1994). The psychological aspectof Islam: Basic principles of Islam and their psychological corollary.International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 4, 41–50.


Averill, J. (1982). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New York:Springer-Verlag.

Baron, M. R., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variabledistinction in social psychological research: Conceptual strategic and sta-tistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,1173–1182.

Berkowitz, L., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2004). Towards an understanding of thedeterminant of anger. Emotion, 4, 107–130.

Brickman, P., Folger, R., Goode, E., & Schul, Y. (1981). Micro and macrojustice. In M. J. Lerner (Ed.), The justice motive in social behavior(pp. 173–202). New York: Plenum.

Clayton, S. D. (1992). The experience of injustice: Some characteristics andsome correlates. Social Justice Research, 5, 68–72.

Clore, G. L., & Centerbar, D. B. (2004). Analyzing anger: how to makepeople mad. Emotion, 4, 139–144.

Connor, K. M., Davidson, J. R. T., & Lee, L. (2003). Spirituality resilienceand anger in survivors of violent trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16,487–494.

Ellis, A. (1980). Psychotherapy and atheistic values: A response to A. E.Bergin’s “Psychotherapy and religious values.” Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 48, 635–639.

Ellison, C. G., & Levin, J. S. (1998). The religion–health connection:Evidence, theory, and future directions. Health, Education and Behavior,25, 700–720.

Freud, S. (1964). The future of an illusion. New York: Anchor Books.(Original work published 1927)

Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). The psychology of religion. Annual Review ofPsychology, 39, 201–221.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1994). Toward motivational theories of intrinsic religiouscommitment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33, 315–325.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1999). UniMult: Univariate and multivariate data analysis[Computer software and manual]. Pasadena, CA: UniMult.

Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E. (1989). Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement:I/E-revised and single-item scales. Journal for the Scientific Study ofReligion, 28, 348–354.

Hathaway, W. L., & Pargament, K. I. (1990). Intrinsic religiousness, religiouscoping, and psychological competence: A covariance structure analysis.Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, 423–441.

Isikoff, M., & Barry, J. (2005, May 9). Gitmo SouthCom showdown.Newsweek, 145(19), 10.

Kassinove, H., & Eckhardt, C. (1995). The model for the formation ofstates of anger and aggression. In H. Kassinove (Ed.), Anger disorders:

1024 BROWN ET AL.

Definition, diagnosis, and treatment (pp. 197–202). Washington, DC:Taylor & Francis.

Keltner, D., Ellsworth, P. C., & Edwards, K. (1993). Beyond simple pessi-mism effects on sadness and anger on social perception. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 64, 740–752.

Koenig, H. G., McCullough, M. E., & Larson, B. D. (2001). Handbook ofreligion and health. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

MacKinnon, D. P., & Dwyer, J. H. (1993). Estimating mediated effects inprevention studies. Evaluation Review, 17, 144–158.

Mikula, G. (1986). The experience of injustice: Towards a better under-standing of its phenomenology. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J.Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 103–123). New York:Plenum.

Mikula, G. (2003). Testing an attribution-of-blame model of judgments ofinjustice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 793–811.

Miller, D. T. (2001). Disrespect and the experience of injustice. AnnualReview of Psychology, 52, 527–553.

Miller, W. R., & Thoresen, C. E. (2003). Spirituality, religion, and health:An emerging research field. American Psychologist, 58, 24–35.

Novaco, R. W. (1976). Anger control: The development and evaluation of anexperimental treatment. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religious coping, theory, research,and practice. New York: Guilford.

Pargament, K. I., Kennell, J., Hathaway, W., Grevengoed, N., Newman, J.,& Jones, W. (1988). Religion and the problem-solving process: Threestyles of coping. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 27, 90–104.

Pargament, K. I., Magyar, G. M., Benore, E., & Mahoney, A. (2005).Sacrilege: A study of sacred loss and desecration and their implicationsfor health and well-being in a community sample. Journal for the ScientificStudy of Religion, 44, 59–79.

Pargament, K. I., & Mahoney, A. (2002). The discovery and conservation ofthe sacred. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positivepsychology (pp. 646–59). New York: Oxford University Press.

Plante, T. G., & Boccaccini, M. T. (1997). The Santa Clara Strength ofReligious Faith Questionnaire. Pastoral Psychology, 45, 375–387.

Rippin, A. (1990). Muslims: Their religious beliefs and practices: Vol. 1. Theformative period. London: Routledge.

Roseman, I. (2004). Appraisals, rather than unpleasantness of muscle move-ments, are the primary determinants of specific emotions. Emotions, 4,145–150.


Schaefer, C. A., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1991). Psychological adjustment andreligiousness: The multivariate belief–motivation theory of religiousness.Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 449–461.

Schaefer, C. A., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1992). Dimensionality of religion: Beliefand motivation as predictors of behavior. Journal of Psychology andChristianity, 11, 244–254.

Schaefer, C. A., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1993). Situational and personal variationsin religious coping. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32, 136–147.

Scher, S. J. (1997). Measuring the consequences of injustice. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 23, 482–497.

Scherer, K. R. (1988). Criteria for emotion-antecedent appraisal: A review.In V. Hamilton, G. H. Bower, & N. H. Frijda (Eds.), Cognitive perspec-tives on emotion and motivation (pp. 89–126). New York: KluwerAcademic/Plenum.

Scherer, K. R. (2001). The nature and study of appraisal: A review of theissues. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisalprocesses in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 369–392). New York:Oxford University Press.

Smith, C. A., & Kirby, L. D. (2004). Appraisal as a pervasive determinant ofanger. Emotion, 4, 133–138.

Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Appraisal components, core relationthemes, and the emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 7, 233–269.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in struc-tural equation models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology(pp. 290–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spielberger, C. D. (1998). The revised and expanded STAXI-2. Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources.

Spielberger, C. D., & Reheiser, E. C. (2003). Measuring anxiety, anger,depression, and curiosity as emotional states and personality traits withthe STAI, STAXI, and STPI. In M. Hersen, M. J. Hilsenroth, & D. L.Segal (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment (Vol. 2,pp. 70–86). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Spielberger, C. D., Reheiser, E. C., & Sydeman, S. J. (1995). Measuringthe experience, expression, and control of anger. In H. Kassinove(Ed.), Anger disorders: Definition, diagnosis, and treatment (pp. 49–67).Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Sung Joon, J., & Johnson, B. R. (2004). Explaining religious effects ondistress among African Americans. Journal of Scientific Study of Religion,43, 239–260.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Nesler, M. S. (1993). Grievances: Development andreaction. In R. B. Felson & J. T. Tedeschi (Eds.), Aggression and violence(pp. 13–45). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

1026 BROWN ET AL.

Tyler, T. R. (1984). Justice in the political arena. In R. Folger (Ed.), The senseof injustice (pp. 189–222). New York: Plenum.

Wong-McDonald, A., & Gorsuch, R. L. (2000). Surrender to God: Anadditional coping style? Journal for Psychology and Theology, 28, 149–161.

Wong-McDonald, A., & Gorsuch, R. L. (2004). A multivariate theory ofGod concept, religious motivation, locus of control, coping, and spiritualwell-being. Journal for Psychology and Theology, 32, 318–334.


Sacred Violations, Perceptions of Injustice, and Anger in Muslims

Documents

Transcript of Sacred Violations, Perceptions of Injustice, and Anger in Muslims