High and Low Trait Anger, Angry Thoughts, and the Recognition of Anger Problems.

This research had two goals: (1) it tested hypotheses of the State-Trait Model of anger, and (2) it explored characteristics that may distinguish individuals with high trait anger who recognize problems with their anger from those who do not recognize anger problems. Regarding the first goal, findings supported three hypotheses tested. In particular, compared to those low in trait anger, individuals with high trait anger reported: (a) more intense anger (intensity hypothesis), p < .001, effect size (η(2)) = .109; (b) more thoughts involving pejorative labeling/denigration, p < .001, η(2) = .280, thoughts of revenge, p < .001, η(2) = .170, more outward, negative anger expression (anger-out), p < .001, η(2) = .229, and more physically aggressive expression, p < .001, η(2) = .046-.123, (aggression hypothesis); and (c) more anger suppression (anger-in), p < .001, η(2) = .231, and fewer thoughts of self-control, p < .001, η(2) = .088, and behavioral efforts to control angry feelings (anger control-in), p < .001, η(2) = .116, and behavior (anger control-out), p < .001, η(2) = .260 (reduced positive coping hypothesis). For the second goal we employed two types of individuals, both with high trait anger: those who identified anger as a personal problem and wanted help, and those who did not identify anger as a personal issue. As a result, compared to those who did not report anger problems, those who reported anger problems demonstrated a higher overall propensity to experience anger (i.e., higher trait anger), p < .01, η(2) = .028, greater anger suppression and harboring grudges (anger-in), p < .001, η(2) = .035, fewer thoughts of self-control, p < .05, η(2) = .015, and attempts to control their angry feelings (anger-control-in), p < .05, η(2) = .016, and behavior (anger-control-out), p < .001, η(2) = .054. Gender was not associated with trait anger or anger problem recognition. Findings were discussed in terms of State-Trait Theory and implications for anger interventions.

High trait anger Mexican youth: characteristics, parental anger, and counseling needs.

This study compared three groups of Mexican youth: (1) high trait anger adolescents recognizing anger problems (HR); (2) high trait anger youth not reporting anger problems (HNR); and (3) low trait anger adolescents not reporting anger problems (LNR). The HR group was sizable, representing 21% of all students and 72% of high anger youth. Compared to LNR, high anger groups (HR and HNR) experienced more angry feelings, engaged in anger suppression (e.g., holding anger in and harboring grudges) and aggressive anger expression (e.g., urges to aggression, physical aggressive anger expression toward others and toward self and objects), and reported lower internal and external anger control (e.g., relaxing and controlling one's behavior when angry). High anger groups also reported greater trait anger in both parents than LNR, suggesting parent's anger is a risk factor for anger in adolescents. HR and HNR groups, however, did not differ on any variable. Findings for high anger groups supported the intensity, aggression, and reduced positive coping hypotheses of State-Trait Anger Theory. Findings were also discussed in terms of the counseling needs of high anger Mexican youth and State-Trait Theory.

Developing an Inventory to Measure Anger in Mexican Children / Desarrollo de un Inventario para la Medición de la Ira en Niños Mexicanos / Desenvolvimento de um Inventário para a Mediação da Ira em Crianças Mexicanas

Based on the state-trait model of anger (Spielberger, 1988, 1999), the aim was to develop a reliable and valid inventory to measure anger in Mexican children. Exploratory factor analyses on responses from 592 children (302 boys, 290 girls) (M=10.35 years old, SD=1.14) revealed four factors suggesting construct validity: 6-item state anger (e.g., "I am upset"), 5-item trait-temperament (e.g., "I get mad easily"), 7-item anger-out (e.g., "I fight with whoever made me mad"), and 12-item anger control (e.g., "I try to relax"). Alpha reliabilities were .76, .76, .73, and .88, respectively. Anger control correlated negatively with other factors, whereas other factors correlated positively with each other. The inventory also had concurrent validity with an instrument that measured physical aggression.

Este estudio tuvo como objetivo desarrollar un inventario válido y confiable para medir la ira en niños mexicanos, basado en el modelo estado-rasgo (Spielberger, 1988, 1999). Los resultados de análisis factoriales exploratorios de las respuestas de 592 niños, 302 niños y 290 niñas, (M=10.35 años y DE=1.14), revelaron cuatro factores que sugieren validez de constructo: 6 reactivos de ira estado (e. g. "Estoy molesto"), 5 reactivos de temperamento-rasgo (e. g. "Me enojo fácilmente"), 7 reactivos de ira-externa (e. g. "Me peleo con quien me hizo enojar") y 12 reactivos de control de la ira (e. g. "Intento relajarme"). Las confiabilidades alfa fueron .76, .76, .73 y .88, respectivamente. El inventario tuvo validez concurrente con un instrumento que midió agresión física.

Este estudo teve como objetivo desenvolver um inventário válido e confiável para medir a ira em crianças mexicanas, baseado no modelo estado-traço (Spielberger, 1988, 1999). Os resultados de análises fatoriais exploratórias das respostas de 592 crianças, 302 meninos e 290 meninas (M=10.35 anos e DP=1.14), revelaram quatro fatores que sugerem validade de constructo: 6 reativos de ira estado (por exemplo "Estou bravo"); 5 reativos de temperamento-traço (por exemplo "Fico bravo facilmente"); 7 reativos de ira-externa (por exemplo "Eu brigo com quem me faz ficar bravo") e 12 reativos de controle da ira (por exemplo "Tento ficar calmo"). As confiabilidades alfa foram .76, .76, .73 e .88, respectivamente. O inventário teve validade concorrente com um instrumento que mediu agressão física.

High and low trait anger, and the recognition of anger problems.

This study compared three groups of people: (a) high trait anger individuals who recognized personal anger problems (HR); (b) high trait anger individuals who did not recognize personal anger problems (HNR); and (c) low trait anger individuals not reporting personal anger problems (LNR). Compared to LNR participants, HR and HNR groups reported more anger-out (i.e., outward negative expression of anger such as arguing with others), anger-in (i.e., anger suppression and harboring grudges), greater desire to use and actual use of physically aggressive anger expression (e.g., pushing or shoving someone), and less anger control-in (i.e., emotionally focused strategies to lower anger such as relaxation) and anger control-out (i.e., behaviorally focused strategies such as being patient with others). HR individuals reported more trait anger (i.e., higher propensity to experience anger) and less anger control-out than the HNR group. Gender did not relate to the recognition of anger problems. Findings were discussed with regard to theory and clinical implications.