Inside the Brain of Someone Who Breaks Rules and Gets Angry: The Psychology of 'Reverse Anger' Revealed by Behavioral Economics
■ Introduction: The Reserved Seat Trouble as a Microcosm of Modern Times
This is an incident I happened to see in the news on social media.
The individual had reserved a seat on the Shinkansen, but
because they arrived at the station early, they decided to stop by a shop they were curious about.
As a result, they missed their scheduled train and boarded a later Shinkansen.
Naturally, the reserved seat ticket in their hand was not for that train.
Even so, they sat in an empty reserved seat, and when asked by the conductor to move,
they expressed anger, saying, "It's fine if it's empty," and
eventually posted the conductor's name on social media—.
At first glance, it looks like a simple case of bad manners, but
from the perspective of behavioral science,the irrationality of human psychologyis an event that symbolizes it.
※Strictly speaking, the theme covered in this article also relates to "behavioral psychology," but
in order to grasp human decision-making and emotional reactions as a whole,
for convenience, it is discussed within the framework of "behavioral economics."
■ 1. The Trap of Loss Aversion: The Brain That Illusorily Feels "Taken"
Humans are built to feel the "pain of losing" more strongly than the "joy of gaining."
This is called "loss aversion bias."
Even for a seat sat in improperly, a sense of "it's mine" (endowment effect) is born in a few minutes.
When told "please move" there,they mistakenly feel as if they have been robbed.
It is not rational; emotion reacts first.
Anger is born from this "illusion of loss."
■ 2. Cognitive Dissonance: Wanting to Believe "I Am Right"
The reality of "not having a reserved ticket" and "being warned"
conflicts with the belief that "I am a correct person."
To resolve that unpleasant contradiction (cognitive dissonance), the brain rewrites the story.
By creating explanations convenient for oneself, such as "the conductor was arrogant" or "they were inflexible,"
self-justificationis performed.Anger is often a "psychological defense reaction" to protect one's self-esteem.
■ 3. The "Invisible Audience" on Social Media Sparks the Fire
In modern times, if you express anger, you immediately gather support.
Social media has become a "theater of empathy," and
reactions like "likes" and "I understand" turn anger into justice.
In behavioral economics, this is calledsocial proof.
The reactions of others become the "basis" for one's own actions.
The act of exposing anger is actuallyan extension of the desire for approval.
■ 4. The Illusion That Reverse Anger Looks Strong
The more strongly a person expresses emotion, the more confident they appear.
This is an illusion called the "affect heuristic."
Angry people look "right," and calm people look "weak."
In this way, unreasonable behavior momentarily gains "momentum."
Society as a whole is often dragged along by this illusion.
■ 5. Conclusion: "Anger" Is an Unconscious Cry in the Form of Self-Defense
It is easy to dismiss angry people simply as "lacking common sense."
But from a behavioral economics perspective, rather than admitting their own mistakes,
they are merelypreventing the collapse of their self-esteemwith anger.
Anger is the "final resort to protect the balance of the mind."
It is irrational, but also human.
That is precisely why we need to keep a "distance" from our own anger as well.
■ Finally: Staying Calm Is the Most Rational Choice
When you see an angry person, if you think "Why go that far?", let's think of it this way.
That person is not angry, butis protecting their crumbling self-esteem.
True strength lies not in exploding with emotion, but
in accepting the facts and maintaining reason.
People who do not get angry are the most rational humans.
■ As a personal opinion
If I were in that situation holding a reserved seat ticket and someone else was sitting in that seat as if it were their own, I would honestly be bewildered.
I would have no choice but to say, "That is my seat," and the interaction itself would be troublesome and unpleasant.
By forcing that "trouble" onto someone else, I think it shows a lack of consideration.
It may not be anger, but rather
a lack of imagination that is the real problem.
By the way, it seems the person who was angry holds a key position at a university...
