Abstract
From ancient times to the present, philosophers have debated the normative status of anger in political discourse. However, these debates have predominantly centered on the normative standpoint, and efforts to bridge the normative discipline with empirical evidence remain elusive. This article examines the functions of expressing anger in political discourse using the empirical method, and establishes a basis for the normative debate which is stated above. In the contemporary philosophical debate on anger, there is a conflict as to whether expressing anger has negative functions (revenge function and avoidance function) or positive functions (salience function, enrichment function). Based on these philosophical debates, we pose two research questions: (1) Is the function of anger primarily positive or negative? and (2) Does the salience of social events have a moderating effect? The results of the survey experiment showed that (1) anger has both negative (revenge) and positive (salience and enrichment) functions, and (2) the functions of expressing anger do not depend on the salience of social events.
