This circumstance, 1A+1B+2+3C, is called "anger". 3A,B optionally co-occur with anger but 3D,E do not co-occur as they remove the commitment.
11/2021: People seem to hate this idea, considering it to be an emotionally bleached, merely logical schema; however, the emotional commitment, engagement, determination in 1B is hardly emotionally bleached, and the thought-to-be-missing emotional activation level is necessarily, naturally associated with -- because supportive of -- a frustration (¬1C), repetition (3A) or amplification (3B) of goal-oriented behavior -- that is, this scenario exactly. Critics considering this emotionally bleached have not truly considered the logic in the first place, or falsely believe that emotion has no logic.
What is called "anger" is a natural consequence of having intentions and carrying out actions in an only-somewhat-cooperative world. Indeed, one cannot fail to ever have anger unless one has a completely cooperative world, or unless one never has the intention to do anything. Anger is normal.
But an infant or two-year-old may have only one method, that of making as much noise, and displaying as much emotional distress, as may be necessary to get the attention and cooperation of his or her caregiver, without which, after all, the baby will die. No preverbal infant can speak to explain its needs, it must depend on the puzzle-solving, or empathetic, or telepathy-like capabilities of its caregiver, and to engage those may require considerable noise and performance of distress. Pulse rate up, blood pressure up, jerky movements, face red, violence more likely. And it's true: noone wins a fight with a two year old. And every adult, that is, everyone who ever once was a two year old, has deep in their tree of all goal-achieving action methods, the knowledge that noise and distress and thrashing about while aiming at the goal, is ALWAYS a trump card, will Always win the argument, will always assure compliance. When they were two, it always did. So yes it was a winning strategy, and there it sits on the tree of possible skills and methods, deep at the root, the very root of the tree, to solve every problem and meet every need.
When one's tree of methods, one's menu of known options, to get goals achieved, starts looking less and less populated, and the possibility of having to back up to the universal backup method, the decompensating tantrum, gets closer and closer, then the person might begin to worry, to carry out its remaining options with concern and anxiety and extra effort, which might seem precursors to the full two-year-old regression. The loss of self-competency may lead the person to become activated, because it cuts at the root of their self-image. And self-image has an important role in emotional regulation (cf. bliss theory), so no wonder.
Now when a person P in the condition 1+2, having tried their known backup skills in 3C usually including 3A and 3B and, depending on their sophistication, a variety of other approaches, and still can't achieve Y, then they can always back up to use their universal two year old method, screw up their face, make loud noises, and thrash about. People think THIS is anger, but no, this is just the universal backup method to achieve your aim. Not a good one, not a sophisticated one, but the last one, and maybe if you're not very sophisticated or skilled you might go there early. But if changing your goal (3D) or giving up (3E) is not on the table, that is, you remain determined, but frustrated, eventually everyone will back up to this universal method, because there it is, at the root of everyone's tree of problem solving methods.
The right thing to do is get right up into the face of the angry person, and try to understand what they are trying to do, and to help them. If their goal is communication, then Listen. If their goal is unachieveable, then help them to find a new goal (3D) or to stop caring (3E). If you have an idea that could help, explain it, to help them now and in future.
But if their goal is communication with you, and you withdraw, then you are taking the worst possible approach, creating the least constructive environment for future cooperation, teaching them to go to 3D and 3E: to no longer want to or care about communicating with you, which means to no longer care about you at all. If that's not your goal, then be aware that withdrawal, even when seemingly justified by your fear, can be very destructive.
2/2021: Withdrawal constitutes an escalation to an actual emotional hostility, which can be more significant than physical violence, and which causes relationship damage and emotional pain to your partner. Perhaps all they wanted was to communicate with you, while you, by withdrawing, are choosing to make their goal impossible, which is to obstruct and thus hurt them. First, you falsely construct their goal-seeking and actually-connecting behavior as relationship-damaging behavior. Then, you damage the relationship by your withdrawal, which actually shows that you prefer to obstruct and hurt, than to connect with, your partner. Not wise.
This is not just analogous to, but actually the same as, a caregiver who ignores the crying baby. The baby learns the caregiver is not reliably there (developing anxious attachment) or reliably not there (developing avoidant attachment), and thereafter the relationship will have that quality which they just learned. If you want your angry loved ones to become avoidant or anxious about your relationship with them, go ahead and do that. But it won't be good for either of you. It's a recipe for escalation, loss of trust, and relationship rupture. Don't do it.
The improved standard of care is to engage: understand P's goal Y, diagnose their tactics, method, or skill, and help them to achieve their goal in one way or another, or to change to a different goal. Everything will be better: they will calm down right away, your relationship will be strengthened, they will become stronger, learning how to handle it in the future, they will be grateful. And you will be safer, more connected, more knowledgeable about your partner, and more courageous and capable yourself.
What is the role of emotional activation in anger? Is it necessary that emotional activation be included in the definition? Or can it be reduced to a mere derived consequence? Calm, determined action, with repetition of re-attempts 3A and 3B in the same plan of action, subscribing the belief that many re-attempts may be normally necessary, would seem to constitute mere inflexible, unimaginative diligence rather than anger per se.
If at the point of 1+2+3A+3B, P considers that there is no 3C possibility, no realistic or effective alternative, and if in addition P is not able to change or abandon his or her emotional commitment to Y via 3D or 3E, then P is evidently both committed to Y and consciously helpless to achieve it. This circumstance seems to be the definition of "frustration".
What is the role of a set, or even a hierarchy, of alternative plans, goals, needs, or intentions? Achieving Y may be part of a larger plan, goal, need or intention, and the failure to achieve Y may therefore also constitute failure to achieve such a larger outcome.
What is "inflexibility"? Remaining at 1+2+3A+3B without changing to 3C|3D|3E may not be due to P's failure to reconsider his or her approach, but may instead be due to an assessment that no effective alternative path 3C exists and to a reaffirmation of the intention which must needs be abandoned to consider 3D or 3E. For such reassessment and reaffirmation to proceed without exploring alternatives is the very definition of "inflexibility". However, one may be quite flexibly able to explore many alternatives, yet find none effective, or one may upon reassessment find even more good reasons to remain committed to the outcome Y.