The general function of anger seems to be a bargaining tactic aimed at making others treat you better or gaining a larger share of resources. With that in mind I can think of a few plausible explanations for people unleashing anger from work onto family members:
For some reason (evolutionary or physiological) it takes time for anger to dissipate, and this is a side effect of that.
It’s a deniable, low risk way to demand additional concessions on top of an existing arrangement. If the other party gives in, it might become a new norm, and if they don’t, afterwards you can say “sorry, it was just work; I didn’t mean it.”
It’s a way to test how much the other person cares about you, or more generally what you can get away with, for future reference. By having a plausible excuse to be angry you can avoid coming across as crazy or unreasonable.
You’re signaling actual adversity, a reduction in expected future resources, and demanding concessions based on that.
Perhaps an even simpler explanation: In the EEA, there was no “work” and “home”, and if you were angry with someone, they were almost always nearby. (As a thought experiment, if Emily’s husband came to visit her at work while she was arguing with her boss, I imagine Emily would sooner try to rope her husband into her side of the argument than take out her anger on her husband.)
The general function of anger seems to be a bargaining tactic aimed at making others treat you better or gaining a larger share of resources. With that in mind I can think of a few plausible explanations for people unleashing anger from work onto family members:
For some reason (evolutionary or physiological) it takes time for anger to dissipate, and this is a side effect of that.
It’s a deniable, low risk way to demand additional concessions on top of an existing arrangement. If the other party gives in, it might become a new norm, and if they don’t, afterwards you can say “sorry, it was just work; I didn’t mean it.”
It’s a way to test how much the other person cares about you, or more generally what you can get away with, for future reference. By having a plausible excuse to be angry you can avoid coming across as crazy or unreasonable.
You’re signaling actual adversity, a reduction in expected future resources, and demanding concessions based on that.
Perhaps an even simpler explanation: In the EEA, there was no “work” and “home”, and if you were angry with someone, they were almost always nearby. (As a thought experiment, if Emily’s husband came to visit her at work while she was arguing with her boss, I imagine Emily would sooner try to rope her husband into her side of the argument than take out her anger on her husband.)