This is your 3rd post in the thread, alleging that catharsis doesn't work.
Now, personally, I don't have skin in the game, so I can't tell you whether it works or not.
But the fact that you're citing a 1967 psych study done on 9 year old kids tells me you have some kind of agenda for whatever reason. Not only are most psych studies flat out junk, but the 50s and 60s was the time of particularly egregious junk science. Remember, that's the time they still did lobotomies.
Besides, the study you cited only limits itself to cathartic aggression, which is clearly not the only case for the experience.
I can link you to another bunch. Because I took interest on the subject. I've been told to "vent" almost all of my life and only a few years ago I got exposed to this research.
I'm citing one of the earlier ones and there's plenty of newer studies.
My "allegations" are based in research and not empty words(unlike the accusations in your comment)
It's pretty incredible how few comments in this thread are saying "huh, this is interesting, I should try this, research backs it up." That's the engineer or HN way, isn't it? (Not being sarcastic, I include myself in this). When data comes along which disproves or at least weakens a previously held position, adjust your priors and try it out.
Note: you can say "not until it's proven" but I can cite plenty of less weakly supported positions than "catharsis doesn't work" that have been enthusiastically taken up here. Consider trusting the data, at least a little bit, especially if you have a strongly emotional, but not well supported, response. This is the way (of the engineer).
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1967-02716-001 - it's even in the abstract.