Dimensions Of Anger Research Articles

Adolescent Anger: A Developmental Study

This research examined adolescent anger in a cohort of adolescents measured twice, once during the freshman year and again in the senior year of high school. Anger was measured by the Anger Index, a questionnaire developed by Siegel (1984). The purpose of the research was to determine if adolescent anger changed over time and if there were gender differences. Results of the study indicated that anger scores appeared to be stable over time for both boys and girls. There were gender and time differences on individual responses for several items, indicating that certain dimensions of anger may differ over time and by gender. It also appeared possible that the interpretation of certain questions on the anger index was different for the adolescents at the two time intervals.

Individual and cross-spouse correlations of perceptions of family functioning, blood pressure and dimensions of anger

Individual and cross-spouse correlations of perceptions of family cohesiveness, emotional expressiveness and conflict with blood pressure and five dimensions of anger were examined in 85 couples. Wives' perceptions of family cohesiveness were negatively related to their diastolic blood pressure, whereas husbands' perceptions of all three dimensions of family functioning were unrelated to their blood pressure. Cross-spouse correlations showed that both husbands' and wives' perceptions of emotional expressiveness were negatively related to their spouses' blood pressure, and husbands' perceived family cohesiveness was negatively related to wives' diastolic blood pressure. Individual and cross-spouse correlations with dimensions of anger were also obtained. These findings are discussed in terms of prior cross-spouse correlational research, and gender differences in the pattern of relationships are discussed.

Abstracts

Korner, S. and Brown, G. (1990) Exclusion of children from family psychotherapy: Family therapists' beliefs and practices. Journal of Family PsychologyScharff, J.S. (1989) Play with young children in family therapy: An extension of the therapist's holding capacity. Journal of Psychotherapy and the FamilyHalperin, S. M. (1989) A neglected triangle: Grandmother, mother, and daughter. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International JournalWojcik, J.V. and Iverson, E.R. (1989) Therapeutic letters: The power of the printed word. Journal of Strategic and Systemic TherapiesCassano, D.R. (1989) Multi‐family group therapy in social work practice. Social Work with GroupsRoberts, M., Caesar, L., Perryclear, B. and Phillips, D. (1989) Reflecting team consultations. Journal of Strategic and Systemic TherapiesWarner, M.S. (1989) Empathy and strategy in the family system. Person Centered ReviewDeBord, J.B. (1989) Paradoxical interventions: A review of the recent literature. Journal of Counseling and DevelopmentCole, D.A. and Jordan, A.E. (1989) Assessment of cohesion and adaptability in component family dyads: A question of convergent and discrimimant validity, Journal of Counseling PsychologyMusante, L., Treiber, F.A., Strong, W.B. and Lecy, M. (1990) Individual and cross‐spouse correlations of perceptions of family functioning, blood pressure and dimensions of anger. Journal of Psychosomatic Research

Anger and hostility in depression.

The present study examined the relationship between depression and various dimensions of anger using multiple measures of anger and hostility and comparing depressed subjects with both a normal sample and a clinical sample with predominant anger difficulties. Three groups of subjects were obtained: a normal sample of 120 parents of elementary school children, 36 psychiatric inpatients meeting Research Diagnostic Criteria for major depressive episode, and 54 hospitalized veterans meeting Diagnostic Interview Schedule criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The three groups differed significantly on all measures of anger experience, hostility, anger suppression, and anger expression. The depressed group reported greater levels of hostility and anger experience than the normal group but less than the PTSD group. On measures of anger suppression and expression, the depressed group exhibited more suppression than either the normal or the PTSD group and generally reported levels of anger expression comparable with the normal group's. The PTSD group reported the highest levels of anger expression. Within the depressed group, severity of depression was positively associated with levels of hostility and anger experience but was not related to measures of anger expression and was only partially related to anger suppression. These results are discussed as they relate to the "anger turned in" hypothesis of psychodynamic theories of depression, and directions for future research are noted.

Potential for hostility and dimensions of anger.

Recent reviews have linked Potential for Hostility derived from the Structured Interview (SI) to coronary artery disease, independent of the global Type A pattern. The present study examined the construct validity of Potential for Hostility ratings by correlating Potential for Hostility with 21 scales from four widely used anger/hostility measures: 7 scales from the Anger Self-Report, 8 scales from the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory, the total score from the Novaco Anger Inventory, and 5 scales from the Multidimensional Anger Inventory. The pattern of correlations revealed that Potential for Hostility was significantly related to scales reflecting awareness and arousal of anger, particularly the verbal expression of anger. To identify underlying anger dimensions, the 21 scales were factor-analyzed. Examination of two and three rotated principal components confirmed previous solutions. The first component, representing anger-arousing and -eliciting situations and anger awareness, was labeled Experience of Anger. The second component, consisting of scales dealing with either physical assault or verbal expression of anger, was labeled Expression of Anger. When a third factor was retained, it contained scales of suspicion, mistrust-suspicion, and guilt: It was therefore labeled Suspicion-Guilt. Potential for Hostility was correlated only with the Expression of Anger factor in the two-factor solution; in the three-factor solution, Potential for Hostility was correlated equally with the Experience of Anger and Expression of Anger factors but was not correlated with the Suspicion-Guilt factor. The implications of these results for the assessment of hostility are discussed.

Potential hostility and dimensions of anger.

Potential hostility and dimensions of anger.

Impression‐management and self‐deception components of appraised emotional experience

Two studies tested the hypothesis that self‐reports of emotional experiences contain components of impression‐management and self‐deception. In study 1, subjects provided retrospective self‐reports of the frequency, intensity and duration of 14 positive and 14 negative emotions. Subjects also completed measures of impression‐management and self‐deception. Correlational analyses confirmed that the impression‐management and self‐deception measures were correlated significantly with the reported frequency, intensity and duration of the negative emotions. Self‐deception, but not impression‐management, was correlated with ratings of the positive emotions. The self‐report biases associated with negative emotions were further investigated in study 2. Correlations were computed among measures of impression‐management, self‐deception and dimensions of anger. Consistent with study 1, the results showed that impression‐management and self‐deception scores are correlated significantly with self‐reported dimensions of anger. The need for a self‐presentational approach to the study of emotional experience is discussed.

Gender differences in the relationship between hostility and the type A behavior pattern.

A group of 97 male and 111 female undergraduates completed the Jenkins Activity Survey, the Framingham Type A Scale, the Adjective Checklist Type A Scale, the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory. A factor analysis revealed three dimensions: Anger-Emotionality, Anger-Aggression, and Residual Pattern A. All Type A measures loaded highly on the Type A factor, with the Jenkins Activity Survey loading the highest. The Framingham Type A Scale was related to Anger-Emotionality, the Adjective Checklist Type A Scale was related to Anger-Aggression, and the Jenkins Activity Survey was related to neither of the anger dimensions. Women scored higher than men on Anger-Emotionality and the Guilt, Resentment, and Irritability subscales and lower than men on the Assaultiveness subscale. Women showed higher correlations between Type A and the Guilt subscale, and men between Type A and the Suspiciousness subscale. We conclude that Type A is a multidimensional construct that manifests itself differently in men and women.

Clinical dimensions of anger management.

This paper provides a theoretical model of anger arousal based on Leventhal's Perceptual-Motor Theory of Emotion and elucidates a number of dimensions of anger that must be considered from a therapeutic viewpoint. Means of assessing these dimensions and specific treatment approaches are discussed.

Anger and cardiovascular risk in adolescents.

The present investigation examined the relationship between anger and elevations in cardiovascular risk among adolescents (n = 213). The adolescents were assessed on an anger index and also on certain physical (e.g., blood pressure, cholesterol) and psychological (e.g., anxiety, life dissatisfaction) variables associated with increased risk of cardiovascular diseases. The anger index, a composite of items from various sources, was factor analyzed, producing a terminal solution of two factors: frequent anger directed outward (FAO) and anger-producing situations (AS). Two factor scores were then computed for each subject. Regression analyses, controlling for age and sex, showed that the factor scores were predictive of the physical and psychological measures of cardiovascular risk, and that the factor scores were differentially related to these indices. These preliminary findings are supportive of systematic study both of the multidimensional nature of anger and of the associations of the dimensions of anger with indices of cardiovascular risk.