High general anger: Correlates and treatment

Behm. Res. Ther. Vol. 24. Printedtn GreatBritain

No.

4, pp.

481-489,

OCW-7967186

1986

$3.00

+ 0.00

PcrgamonJournalsLtd

HIGH GENERAL

ANGER: CORRELATES TREATMENT

AND

JERRY L. DEFFENBACHER, PATRICIA M. DEMM and ALLEN D. BRANDON Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, U.S.A. (Received

30 October

1985)

studies on high general anger are reported. In Study I high anger Ss reported significantly more general anger, situational anger, anger-related physiological arousal, frequency and intensity of daily anger and general anxiety than low anger Ss. In response to provocation, heart rates (HRs) did not differ, but high anger Ss reported more state anger and tendencies to be verbally and physically antagonistic and lowered tendency to cope constructively. A regression on general anger revealed that general anxiety. coping through verbal antagonism, and average daily level of anger entered the regression and accounted for 70% of the variance. In Study 2, high anger was treated with a relaxation coping skills intervention. Compared to controls, treated Ss reported less general and situational anger, and less state anger, verbal and physical antagonism and greater constructive coping when provoked. These gains were maintained at 5-week and l-year follow-ups. Groups did not differ on HR when provoked, daily anger ratings or trait anxiety. One-year follow-up, however, revealed significantly lower general anxiety for treated Ss. Results were discussed in terms of the characteristics of high anger Ss, the role of general anxiety in general anger and the usefulness of self-control relaxation approaches for anger reduction. Summary-Two

INTRODUCTION

General anger, the tendency to become easily and frequently angered, appears frequently as a primary or secondary client problem. It may also contribute to physical and verbal aggression (Hazaleus and Deffenbacher, 1986; Rule and Nesdale, 1976), child abuse (Nomellini and Katz, 1983), personal injury and property damage (Hazaleus and Deffenbacher, 1986), inappropriate withdrawal and ineffective problem-solving (Ellis, 1976; Novaco, 1979), and various health problems such as essential hypertension (Gentry, Chesney, Gary, Hall and Harburg, 1982; Spielberger, Westberry, Barker, Russel, DeCrane and Ozer, 1980) and coronary heart disease (Friedman and Rosenman, 1974; Spielberger and London, 1982). Despite the potential role and importance of general anger in client problems and day-to-day living, relatively little is known about it and how it may be treated. This paper reports two studies relevant to the understanding and treatment of general anger. Study 1 mapped some of the cognitive, affective and behavioral characteristics that separate high anger individuals from their low anger peers. Study 1 employed a contrasted group design in which a group of high anger Ss who identified themselves as having a significant personal problem with anger and desiring help was compared to a low anger group who identified themselves as not having anger problems. These groups were compared on a variety of state, trait and person-specific measures of anger and general anxiety. Study 2 used this information about the characteristics of the individual with high anger to target central elements in the design of the anger-reduction intervention. STUDY

I

Method Subjects

High anger Ss were 29 (14 male and 15 female) Introductory Psychology students who scored in the upper-quartile for their sex on the Trait form of the State-Trait Anger Scale (STAS-T; Speilberger, Jacobs, Russell and Crane, 1983; Spielberger et al., 1980) and who indicated a personal problem with anger and a desire for help with it. A previous study (Hazaleus and Deffenbacher, 1986) had shown that high anger Ss selected in this manner: (a) experienced significant negative consequences for their anger such as damage to interpersonal relationships, physical assaults, 481

482

JERRY L. DEFFENBACHER et al.

property damage, personal injury and health problems and legal difficulties; (b) were more angry than university counseling center clients in general or who sought treatment for anger problems: and (c) were generally anxious, but not depressed. Low anger Ss were 3 1 (15 male and 16 female) Introductory Psychology students who scored in the lower-quartile for their sex on the STAS-T and who indicated no problem with anger. All Ss received I hr of research credit for participation. Instruments

Measures were selected to assess the following varied dimensions of anger: (a) general or trait anger; (b) person-specific anger (anger in situations unique to the individual, physiological elements of anger arousal unique to the individul and the intensity of day-to-day anger); and (c) state anger (physiological arousal, reported affect and coping tendencies when provoked). General anger. General anger was measured by the STAS-T (Spielberger et al., 1980, 1983) and the Anger Inventory (AI; Novaco, 1975). The STAS-T is a IO-item, Likert-type scale on which the individual indicates on a 1-4 scale (1 = almost never, 4 = almost always) how he/she generally feels. Total scores range from 10 to 40, with higher scores indicating a greater tendency to perceive situations as anger provoking and to experience the state of anger. Reliabilities range from 0.82 to 0.91 for females and 0.81 to 0.89 for males with highest reliabilities for college students. The STAS-T correlates significantly with other anger and hostility scales and to a lesser extent with anxiety indices (Spielberger et al., 1980, 1983). The AI is a 90-item, Likert-type scale on which Ss rate on a l-5 scale (1 = not at all, 5 = very much) how much anger would be provoked by the situation described in the item. Scores on the AI range from 90 to 450 with higher scores reflecting higher anger arousal across situations. Reliabilities were 0.94 for males and 0.96 for females (Novaco, 1975). Validity for the AI has been reflected in lower scores for police and undergraduate groups than an outpatient group having chronic anger problems (Novaco, 1976). AI scores were also only moderately (rs = 0.25 to 0.39) correlated with general anxiety (Zwemer and Deffenbacher, 1984). Person-specific anger. Person-specific anger measures were drawn from Hazaleus and Deffenbacher (1986). Self-reported physiological reactivity when angered was assessed by having Ss list and then rate on a O-100 scale (0 = absence of symptoms, 100 = symptoms present at all times) the personally most salient physiological symptom of anger arousal, e.g. elevated heart rate (HR). Ratings of situational anger were gathered by having Ss describe the ongoing situation which provoked the greatest anger and rate the degree on a O-100 scale (0 = no anger, 100 = maximum anger ever experienced). The severity of anger across time was assessed through an anger log. For a I-week period after other instruments were administered, Ss each day described the most provocative situation of the day and rated on a O-100 scale (0 = no anger, 100 = maximum anger ever experienced) the amount of anger experienced. Three indices were derived from log data: (a) average daily anger rating; (b) average anger rating for events rated >30 (magnitude of at least mildly angering events); and (c) number of incidents rated >30 (frequency of at least mildly angering events). State anger. State anger was assessed following the presentation of a social provocation through imagery. Presentation through imagery was selected because it was as effective as in viva procedures for eliciting the physiological and emotional arousal of anger (Roberts and Weerts, 1982). The provocation (Novaco, 1975) involved a social exchange at a party where an individual refuses to listen to the participant’s point of view and insults the person. Ss imagined this scene for 2 min as it was read by the experimenter. Immediately after imagination of the scene. the S took his/her pulse on his/her left wrist for a 15-set interval. Pulse rates collected in this manner correlated 0.91-0.93 with mechanically recorded pulse rates (Southard and Katahn, 1967) and 0.90 in a pilot for the current study. HR has been shown to increase with anger arousal (e.g. Roberts and Weerts, 1982; Schwartz, Weinberger and Singer, 1981). Following the taking of pulse rate, Ss completed the IO-item State form of the STAS (STAS-S; Spielberger et al., 1980, 1983). STAS-S items are similar to STAS-T items and are rated on the l-4 scale according to present feelings. Factor analyses substantiated the unitary nature of the STAS-S for both males and females and resulted in a-reliabilities of 0.88-0.95. As predicted by the theoretical distinction of trait and state anger, low correlations (rs = 0.22 to 0.38) were found between STAS-T and STAS-S scores when administered under neutral conditions. Following the completion of the STAS-S, Ss completed the

General anger

483

6-item Coping Questionnaire (CQ; Novaco, 1975) which contains three. 2-item indices of coping via verbal antagonism, physical antagonism and constructive action. Ss rated on a l-7 scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much) the likelihood of engaging in the action described in the item. as if the provocation had occurred in real life. The utility of these brief measures has been reflected in changes following cognitive-behavioral treatments of anger (Hazaleus and Deffenbacher, 1986; Novaco, 1975). Trait anxiety. The Trait Anxiety Inventory (TAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch and Lushene. 1970) was also included to, explore the relationships of anger with general anxiety. The TAI is a 20-item scale on which Ss rate items on a 1-4 scale (1 = almost never; 4 = almost always) as to how they generally feel. Greater scores reflect greater reported general anxiety. cr-Reliabilities are 0.89-0.90 with test-retest reliabilities of 0.86 for 20-day and 0.73 for 10Cday intervals. The TAI is significantly correlated with a variety of anxiety measures. Procedure

A screening instrument, including (a) the STAS-T, (b) a place to indicate a personal problem with anger and a desire for help with it, (c) a place to indicate lack of a personal problem with anger but a desire to participate in anger research and (d) a place for name, address and phone number, was administered in three Introductory Psychology classes of approx. 150 students each. Subjects were assessed in groups of 10-20 in a small classroom. Trait and person-specific instruments were administered first in the order: AI, anger symptoms, anger situations and TAI. Following completion of these, the experimenter, a female graduate student who was unaware of S assignment, demonstrated how to take wrist pulse. Ss practiced 15-set monitorings until all were successful. The experimenter then instructed Ss to vividly imagine the provocation as if it were happening to them. Following a 2-min imagination of the scene, Ss monitored and recorded their 15-set pulse and completed the STAS-S and the CQ. Ss then received instructions for the anger logs which were returned a week later in preaddressed envelopes. Results

Two sex x anger MANOVAs were run, one on nonstate measures and the other on state measures. The MANOVA for nonstate anger measures revealed a multivariate effect for anger [F(8,49) = 36.80, P < O.OOl] but not for sex or the sex x anger interaction [Fs(8,49) = 1.76 and 1.061. The MANOVA on state measures also revealed an effect for anger [F(6,54) = 7.49, P < O.OOl] but not for sex or the interaction [Fs(6,54) = 1.76 and 0.921. Since sex of S was unrelated to the data. the results are summarized for the high and low anger groups in Table 1, along with the univariate Fs for the anger effects. Table 1 shows that high and low anger groups were significantly different on all measures, except HR. Except for constructive coping tendencies, the high anger group was significantly more angry than the low anger group. For constructive coping tendencies, the low anger group reported greater constructive coping than the high anger group. The high anger group was also significantly more generally anxious than the low anger group.

Table

I.

Compansons

between

high

and

low

anger

groups

GWUp Low

anger

High

anger

Univariate anger

R 235.32

SD

R

elt-ecl

SD

F(l.59) 4x.79*-

50.53

317.62

39.07

Anger

symptom

5s 94

29.19

75.59

17.01

9.x1**

Anger Anger

situatmn log-average

67.06 75.61

22.86 15.20

X5.28 53.96

10.92 19.24

14.75***

Anger

log-average

41.10

23.82

61.00

14.8X

14.34.”

Anger

log-frequency

2.52

2.13

5.55

I .76

39.1x***

HR

17.87

2.34

19.47

5.78

STAS-S Construcllve

16.26

5.30

23.81

7.90

19.97***

IO.52

2.62

6.78

2.66

4.61

2.17

9.16

3.28

30.x5*** 40.71***

AI

Verbal Physical TAI

**P

> 30 > 30

ac,,on

antagomsm antagomsm

< 0.01:

***p

< 0.001.

41.04***

2.13

2.98

I .60

6.63

3.37

29.45***

31.61

5.15

46.00

x.00

69.4S”

JERRY

484

Table

I I. ST-AS-T 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. IO. I I. 12. 13. r

-

Al Anger symptom Anger situation Anger log-average Anger log-average > 30 Anger log-frequency > 30 HR St-AS-S Constructive action Verbal antagonism Physical antagonism TAI

>0.25, P
r

>0.33,

P

2 0.70 -

L. DEFFENBACHER

2. Correlations

among

er al.

mcaSurcS

3

4

5

6

1

8

9

IO

II

12

13

0.4 I 0.27 -

0.43 0.40 0.60 -

0.61 0.58 0.38 0.46 -

0.44 0.41 0.25 0.40 0.75 -

0.59 0.60 0.36 0.48 0.94 0.71 -

0.21 0.20 0.02 -0.11 -0.05 -0.05 -0.07 -

0.55 0.60 0.37 0.28 0.38 0.28 0.36 0.34 -

- 0.67 -0.61 -0.24 -0.32 -0.32 -0.27 -0.38 -0.27 -0.59

0.72 0.70 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.29 0.41 0.3 I 0.73 -0.79

0.60 0.56 0.30 0.30 0.27 0.24 0.33 0.27 0.65 -0.63 0.79 -

0.73 0.68 0.4 I 0.49 0.66 0.49 0.64 0.09 0.43 -0.49 0.56 0.51 -


Correlations among measures are presented in Table 2. This table shows that again HR was unrelated or minimally related to other measures. Nearly all of the remaining correlations were significant and positive, except for those with the constructive coping tendency which reasonably formed negative correlations with anger measures, i.e. higher anger and lower constructive coping. Both of the general anger inventories correlated positively with each other and remaining anger indices. Log measures correlated highly with each other, as did most of the state measures. The remaining correlations among anger measures tended to be moderate. Interestingly, the TAI correlated positively with state, trait and person-specific anger measures, and those correlations were approximately as strong as those of either general anger index (STAS-T or AI) with other anger indices. All measures were then entered into a stepwise regression on the STAS-T to explore which indices were uniquely predictive of the extremes of general anger. Trait anxiety, coping with provocation through verbal antagonism and average daily anger ratings entered into this regression (R = 0.84, P < O.OOl), accounting for 70.2% of the variance. Discussion Sex of S alone or in interaction with anger grouping was not related to the findings, suggesting that the findings are applicable to males and females alike. Correlational and between-groups comparisons suggested that the high anger Ss reported more general anger, more situation-specific anger, greater reported physiological arousal to provocation, greater magnitude of daily anger reactions, greater magnitude and frequency of at least mild anger daily, and more state anger, greater tendencies to verbally and physically aggress and lowered tendency toward constructive action when provoked than the low anger Ss. The correlational pattern for the AI was similar to that for the STAS-T suggesting that it has a similar pattern to that for general anger defined by the STAS-T. While these findings supported the validity of the STAS-T, they were also consistent with the underlying trait-state theory of the instrument (Spielberger et al., 1983). The higher daily ratings of anger from the logs, the greater situational and physiological reactivity and the elevations on state anger and ineffectual coping tendencies are predicted by the trait-state theory, as the high trait anger Ss appeared more prone to elevations of state anger on a daily basis and in the experimental situation. The only inconsistency to this was that HR as a state measure was not significantly elevated. An unexpected finding was that for trait anxiety. High anger Ss were significantly more generally anxious than low anger Ss. The relevance of general anxiety was also reflected by the TAI mean for high anger males (_I?= 44.6) falling at the 81% and for high anger females (r = 47.3) at the 88% on sex appropriate college freshman norms (Spielberger et al., 1970) Inspection of the correlational patterns (Table 2) also showed that the correlations of the TAI with other measures were roughly as strong as those for the STAS-T or AI. That is, general anxiety was about as predictive of other anger measures as were general anger measures. Trait anxiety also entered as the first factor in the stepwise regressions on the STAS-T, suggesting that at least for this volunteer, self-identified angry group, general anxiety was a strong correlate. While there are also probably high anger groups without general anxiety and high anxiety groups without anger, the results suggested that general anxiety was a significant part of the clinical picture for these high anger Ss.

General

anger

485

While this interesting set of findings awaits replication, general anxiety should, at least tentatively, be considered part of the problem complex for many high anger college students and perhaps for others as well. The regression findings also provided some suggestions for treatment. First, interventions that have been effective for general anxiety, e.g. anxiety management training (Suinn, 1977) could be included to reduce general anxiety and emotional-physiological components of anger arousal. The second factor in the regression equation, the tendency to engage in verbal antagonism when provoked, suggests that the high anger Ss may not have appropriate interpersonal skills with which to handle social stress and provocation. Assertive skills might be included in treatment. The third factor in the regression, the daily anger log ratings, would support the inclusion of efforts to maximize transfer treatment effects to the daily environment, e.g. practice of skills within therapy in response to actual or imaginal provocations and homework for in vivo practice. STUDY 2 Given the treatment implication of Study 1, a second study was conducted to see if a relaxation coping skills approach, an adaptation of anxiety management training (&inn, 1977). could be effective for anger reduction. Anxiety management training was chosen because it has documented effectiveness for anxiety reduction (Deffenbacher and Suinn, 1982; Suinn, 1977), because it has a consistent self-control training format within and between sessions to foster in vivo transfer and because previous literature (Cragan and Deffenbacher, 1984; Hart, 1984; Hazaleus and Deffenbacher, 1986) suggested that it might be effective for anger reduction. Initially, this may seem like a poor treatment selection because Novaco’s (1975) results suggested that a relaxation intervention was relatively weak compared to cognitive or combined cognitive and relaxation conditions. Novaco’s study, however, contained design and implementation issues which may have mitigated against the full development of relaxation coping skills and a full demonstration of their impact. For example, treatments were framed within an overall self-control rationale, but training was placed in a passive counterconditioning format. This may have confused Ss and worked against the development of self-control. Also, the spacing of sessions and the nature of procedures may have worked against the development of relaxation coping skills. For example. sessions were held twice weekly which may not have allowed full practice of relaxation or coping via relaxation; home practice of relaxation was apparently not utilized; homework emphasizing application of coping skills in vivo was not given; specific relaxation coping skills were not described; and training within the passive counterconditioning format may not have maximized acquisition of relaxation coping skills. Additionally, no follow-up was employed and increased effects for relaxation coping skills approaches have been sometimes noted at follow-up (Deffenbacher and Suinn, 1982). Thus, it is plausible that the cognitive intervention appeared more effective because the relaxation intervention was not maximally implemented. A relaxation intervention which addressed these issues, therefore, seemed appropriate, given the affective and physiological arousal involved in anger and the apparent covariation of anger with general anxiety.

Method Subjects

Subjects were the 29 high anger Ss from Study 1. Within constraints of scheduling, approximately equal numbers of males and females were randomly assigned to conditions (n = 13 for relaxation and n = 16 for control conditions). All Ss earned two research credits for participation. Instruments

Measures were the same as Study 1, except that the STAS-T did not include questions about presence or absence of personal anger problems and the anger symptoms measure was omitted. Additionally, since the anger log measures were highly correlated in Study 1 (Table 2) the anger log-average measure was retained as the single index of daily anger level.

JERRYL. DEFFENBACHER ef al.

486

Procedure Assessments. Assessments were done 1 week prior to treatment (pretreatment), 1 week following treatment (posttreatment), and 5 weeks after treatment (5-week follow-up). Study 1 served as pretreatment assessment, and subsequent assessments paralleled Study 1 except that the STAS-T was completed with other self-report inventories and the log was completed only at 5-week follow-up. One-year posttreatment (l-year follow-up), Ss were sent a letter explaining the follow-up, the STAS-T, AI, TAI and stamped return envelope. Four weeks after the initial mailing. materials were resent to those who had not responded. Treatments. The relaxation intervention consisted of six, weekly, I-hr. small (n = 6 or 7) group sessions which took place in a small olassroom. Treatment groups were administered by the third author, an advanced graduate student who was eclectic in therapy orientation, but who had extensive supervised experience with anxiety management training. Detailed written treatment outlines were developed for each session and were discussed and role-played in weekly I-hr supervision sessions with the first author. Treatment closely conformed to anxiety management training (Suinn, 1977) except that the rationale was related to anger and anger arousing scenes were utilized instead of anxiety scenes. Sessions 1 and 2 introduced a self-control rationale, progressive relaxation training and the coping skills of relaxing through deep breathing, relaxing without tension and relaxation imagery. Homework for these sessions focused on relaxation practice and anger monitoring. Coping skill application was the focus of Sessions 3-6. Within sessions, Ss imagined personal anger scenes, became aware of the internal cues of anger arousal and actively relaxed away anger. Over sessions, therapist control of anger arousal and relaxation retrieval was faded, and the intensity of anger arousal was increased from moderate to very high. Homework during these sessions emphasized the in ~iuo application of relaxation coping skills for anger reduction, first in nonangering situations and progressively in more angering situations. Efforts at application were recorded and discussed at the beginning of the next session. Subjects in the no-treatment expectancy control condition were given no expectation of treatment and simply received experimental credit for completing the assessments. Possible assignment to the control, however, had been part of the informed consent procedures. Results Preliminary anaI_vses

Correlations between premeasures for the high anger Ss revealed 10 significant correlations in 45. The tendency to cope through verbal antagonism accounted for five of these, correlating positively with both measures of general anger (STAS-T and AI), state anger (STAS-S) and coping through physical antagonism (rs = 0.54, 0.38, 0.61 and 0.67) and negatively with constructive action (r = -0.72). The tendency for physical antagonism correlated positively with state anger (r = 0.45) and negatively with constructive coping (r = -0.41). The STAS-T also correlated negatively with constructive coping (r = -0.58) and the STAS-S positively with HR (r = 0.38). These correlations suggested some overlap among measures, particularly state measures, but also that measures generally added some unique understanding to anger. Two sex x treatment MANOVAs were run on pretreatment measures to see if treatment condition or sex of S were related to variables prior to intervention. The MANOVA on nonstate anger measures (STAS-T, AI, anger situation, anger log and TAI) revealed no significant multivariate effects for sex, treatment or the sex x treatment interaction [Fs(5,21) = I .34, 0.38 and 1.401. The MANOVA on state anger measures revealed a significant effect for treatment [F(5,21) = 2.76. P < 0.051 but not for sex or the interaction [Fs(5,21) = 2.20 and 1.041. Univariate analyses suggested that the multivariate treatment effect on state measures was due to HR as only it approached statistical significance [F( 1,25) = 4.03, P < 0.061, with a tendency for relaxation SS to have higher HRs. Treatment efects

through S-week follow -up

Following the suggestions of Cronbach

and Furby (1970), a repeated-measures

ANCOVA

General

anger

487

approach to analyzing treatment effects was employed. In these ANCOVAs, pretreatment scores were covaried against posttreatment and follow-up scores. Preliminary sex x treatment x trials ANCOVAs revealed that sex of S entered into only two main effects and one interaction out of a possible 40. Sex and sex x treatment interactions were significant on the AI [Fs( 1,24) = 13.48 and 8.14, Ps -c0.011. Newman-Keuls analyses revealed that these effects were due to treated males (B = 256.26) showing significantly greater reduction on the AI than treated females (8 = 302.83; P < 0.05). The main effect for sex on pulse rate [F(l, 24) = 4.31. P < 0.051 was due to females (J? = 18.21) having higher pulse rates than males (X = 16.54). Since so few effects were noted for sex of S, sex of S was dropped as a moderator variable, and results were analyzed by treatment x trials repeated-measures ANCOVAs (Table 3). Inspection of Table 3 reveals no trials main effects and only two treatment x trials interactions, suggesting generally that Ss did not change between posttreatment and follow-up. Treatment x trials interactions were due to small posttreatment to follow-up increases for relaxation and decreases for controls on the AI and STAS-S. Relaxation Ss reported less anger on indices of general anger (STAS-T and AI), personal anger situation ratings and state anger (STAS-S), lowered tendencies to cope through verbal and physical antagonism and a greater tendency to cope through constructive action than controls. Though HR Table 3. Means

and standard

deviations

arranged

by assessments

Group Anxiety

Measure General anger STAS-T Pre Post FU AI Pre Post FU Person-specific anger Anger situation Pre Post FU Anger log Pre Post FU Sulre ungP’ HR (beatsJl5sec) Pre POSC FU STAS-S Pre Post FU Constructive coping Pre Post FU Verbal aggresswe coping Pre Post FU Physical aggressive coping Pre Pas I FU

Pre POSl FU

management training

Control

Fs for ANCOVAs __Groups (G) Trials (T) G x T (I. 27) (1.26) (1~27)

K

SD

B

SD

26.77 20.30 19.07

4.30 3.80 4.59

25.38 24.00 23.51

2.73 1.80 2.36

18.44***

1.71

0.31

322.85 276.85 284.62

43.97 53.38 54.52

315.50 323.93 314.43

36.33 27.81 26.78

21.68***

0.04

4.41’

85.38 63.92 58.84

13.33 16.98 22.40

84.75 82.38 76.88

8.63 12.85 20.1 I

9.00’.

3.78

0.01

56.62 43.92

18.91 15.21

53.19 51.50

20.00 18.25

21.61 17.82 17.28

7.05 3.31 3.21

17.56 17.71 16.91

4.36 3.66 2.61

0.77

0.02

23.53 15.47 16.78

9.69 5.21 4.22

24.86 26.68 23.93

6.61 5.57 6.90

28.47***

0.37

6.46’

6.00 10.06 9.60

3.2 I 2.62 2.90

7.19 6.77 7.45

2.20 2.28 I .89

14.21***

0.09

2.31

9.23 6.32 6.47

3.79 2.80 2.57

9.50 9.18 8.12

2.92 2.89 2.17

14.20***

2.26

4.06

6.62 4.33 4.02

3.73 2.05 I .85

6.94 6.67 6.73

3.23 3.1 I 3.16

15.95***

0. I3

0.29

46.38 39.03 39.58

7.53 7.71 9.14

45.62 43.41 42.97

8.67 8.17 II.19

0.00

0.22

lP c 0.05; l*P
Al = Anger Inventory.

2.41

0.06

3.25

STAS-S = State-Trait

Anger Scale-State:

488

JERRY L. DEFFENBACHER er al.

Table 4. Means and standard

deviations

through

I-yr follow-up

GRXlp Anxiety management training (n = 9) MCi3SUE

STAS-T PK Post 5-Week FU

Control

(n = 11)

R

SD

K

SD

28.00 20.01 18.78

4.47 4.21 4.21

25.00 24.09 23.63

2.31 I .50 2.71 3.14

17.89

3.00

24.27

PE POSl 5-Week FU

320.89 262.14 272.81

46.03 53.x 54.03

301.45 316.70 306.25

35.77 27.65 23.10

I-Week FU TAI PX Post S-Week FU

263.26

30.80

3 19.88

27.18

50.44 41.32 41.32

4.67 8.17 9.55

47.55 46.10 46.92

10.04 9.34 II.37

37.10

8.00

49.56

II.66

I-Year FU

Fs for ANCOVAS Groups (G) Trials (T) GxT &I. 17) F(2.36) F(2.36)

17.15”’

0.97

1.20

23.33***

0.06

I .6X

8.62..

0.16

4.06.

AI

I-Year

FU

lf < 0.05; l*P < 0.01; ***p

<

0.001

and anger log ratings were lowered for relaxation Ss and not for controls, these differences were not significant. Relaxation Ss reported less anxiety on the TAI than controls, but this difference only approached significance (P < 0.09). One -year follow -up Three (1 relaxation and 2 control) Ss could not be located in the 1-yr follow-up. Overall return rate was 68.97%, which was not related to condition as 69.23% of relaxation and 68.75% of control Ss returned data. Means (unadjusted pretreatment means and adjusted posttreatment and follow-up means) and standard deviations for the I-yr follow-up sample appear in Table 4. Comparisons between pretreatment means for groups retained in the I-yr follow-up revealed that relaxation and control groups did not differ prior to treatment on the STAS-T, AI or TAI [ts(l8) = 1.82, 1.04 and 0.851. Repeated-measures ANCOVAs (Table 4) revealed a significant treatment effect on all measures and a signficant treatment x trials interaction on the TAI. The treatment main effects, without trials or interactions effects, on the STAS-T and AI suggested that through the I-yr follow-up relaxation Ss continued to report significantly less general anger than controls (Ps < 0.001). The interaction on the TAI was explored by Newman-Keuls analyses within and between groups. No changes were found within groups, but at I-yr follow-up relaxation Ss were significantly less anxious than controls (P c 0.05). GENERAL

DISCUSSION

This study suggested that anxiety management training could be successfully adapted for anger reduction. Treated Ss showed anger reduction on measures of general anger, anger in personally angering situations and state anger in the face of provocation. They also reduced their reported tendency to physically and verbally aggress and increased their tendency to engage in constructive action when provoked. Five-week and I-yr follow-ups showed that significant reductions in anger were maintained. Of anger measures, only HR and log measures failed to show between-group differences. The lack of findings for HR are not surprising as it was relatively low at pretreatment and reductions in HR have not been found for anxiety management training when applied to anxiety (Cragan and Deffenbacher, 1984; Hutchings, Denney, Basgall and Houston, 1980). Daily anger ratings were down for treated Ss, but this difference was not statistically significant. However, it should be noted that this measure did not assess coping with anger, only the highest level upon provocation. Overall, the relaxation intervention was very effective for anger reduction. This pattern of findings demonstrating the strength of an applied relaxation intervention was consistent with results reported by Hazaleus and Deffenbacher (1986), but generally stronger than the findings of Novaco (1975). This suggests that when sufficient attention was paid to training

General

anger

489

and applying relaxation coping skills, they too were effective in reducing anger and that Novaco’s (1975) conclusions regarding the relative effectiveness of relaxation interventions may have underestimated their potency for anger reduction. That is, cognitive interventions may be no more effective than relaxation interventions when the relaxation coping skills are well developed. Indirectly, these results raised another question about Novaco’s conclusions. The question of the effectiveness of the combination of relaxation and cognitive conditions was reopened. It may be that when a more effective relaxation component is added to a cognitive component that their combination may be more powerful than the cognitive component alone. This question, however, awaits an empirical evaluation. General anxiety did not show reduction through the 5-week follow-up which was somewhat surprising given that anxiety management training was developed for general anxiety reduction. At year follow-up, relaxation Ss reported significantly less general anxiety than controls. suggesting a consolidation of relaxation coping skills noted in other research (Deffenbacher and Suinn, 1982). Hazaleus and Deffenbacher (1986), however, did not find a parallel general anxiety reduction at 1-yr follow-up which suggests that this finding may be somewhat unstable and that specific training in the application of relaxation coping skills to anxiety-arousing situations may be beneficial. Such training would take relatively little therapy time and would seem only to enhance possible gain for these clients who appear high on both general anger and anxiety. Thus, an effective intervention for anger reduction might be enhanced even more by giving direct attention to general anxiety which appears to covary significantly with the anger. Correspondence-Requests

for reprints

should

be addressed

to J. L. Deffenbacher.

REFERENCES Cragan M. K. and Deffenbacher J. L. (1984) Anxiety management training and relaxation as self-control in the treatment of generalized anxiety in medical outpatients. J. counsel. PsychoI. 31, 123-131. Cronbach L. J. and Furby L. (1970) How we would measure change-or should we? PsychoI. Bull. 74, 68-80. Deffenbacher J. L. and Suinn R. M. (1982) The self-control of anxiety. In Self-manugement and Behaoior Change (Edited by Karoly P. and Kanfer F. H.), pp. 393-442. Pergamon Press, New York. Ellis A. (1976) Techniques of handling anger in marriage. J. Murr. Fum. Counsel. 2, 305-315. Friedman M. and Rosenman R. H. (1974) Tvpe A Behucior and Your Heurf. Knopf. New York. Gentry W. D., Chesney A. P., Gary H. E., Hall R. P. and Harburg E. (1982) Habitual anger-coping styles: 1. Effect on mean blood pressure and risk for essential hypertension. Pswhosom. Med. 44, 195-202. Hart K. E. (1984) Anxiety management training and anger control for type A individuals. J. Behuv. Ther. exp. Pswhiar. 15, 247-254. Haz.aleus S. L. and Deffenbacher J. L. (1986) Relaxation and cognitive treatments of anger. J. consulf. c/in. Psychol. 54, 222-226. Hutchings D. F., Denney D. R.. Basgall J. and Houston B. K. (1980) Anxiety management training and applied relaxation in reducing general anxiety. Beha?. Res. Ther. 18, 181-190. Nomelhni S. and Katz R. C. (1983) Effects of anger control training on abusive parents. Cog. Ther. Res. 7, 57-68. Novaco R. W. (1975) Anger Control. Heath. Lexington, Mass. Novaco R. W. (1976) The functions and regulations of the arousal of anger. Am. J. Psychiur. 133, 112&l 128. Novaco R. W. (1979) The cognitive regulation of anger and stress. In Cognitice Behkorul fnlementions. Theory Research. and Procedures (Edited by Kendall P. C. and Hollon S. D.), pp. 241-285. Academic Press, New York. Roberts R. J. and Weerts T. C. (1982) Cardiovascular responding during anger and fear imagery. Psychol. Rep. 50,219-230. Rule B. G. and Nesdale A. R. (1976) Emotional arousal and aggressive behavior. Ps.vchol. Bull. 83, 851-863. Schwartz G. E., Weinberger D. A. and Singer J. A. (I 98 I) Cardiovascular differentiation of happiness, sadness, anger. and fear following imagery and exercise. Psychosom. Med. 43, 343-364. Southard L. D. and Katahn M. (1976) The correlation between self-reported and mechanically-recorded pulse rates. Ps_vchonom. Sci. 8, 343-344. Spielberger C. D. and London P. (1982) Rage boomerangs. Am. Hlrh 1, 52-56. Spielberger C. D.. Gorsuch R. L. and Lushene R. E. (1970) Mum&for the Stale-Trail Anxiety Inoenfory (SeJf-eraluurion Quwfionnaire). Consulting Psychologists Press. Palo Alto. Calif. Spielberger C. D., Westberry L.. Barker L.. Russel S.. DeCrane R. S. and Ozer A. K. (1980) Preliminary Munua/,/clr rhe Srute-Truir Anger Scale (STAS). Center for Research in Community Psychology, Univ. of South Florida. Tampa, Fla. Spieiberger C. D.. Jacobs G. A., Russell S. and Crane R. S. (1983) Assessment of anger: the state-trait anger scale. In Adwnces in Personulity Assessment. Vol. 2 (Edited by Butcher J. N. and Spielberger C. D.), pp. 112-134. Erlbaum. Hillsdale. N.J. Suinn R. M. (1977) Munuul-Anxiety Munugement Training (AMT). Rocky Mountain Behavioral Science Institute, P.O. Box 1066. Fort Collins, Coi. Zwemer W. A. and Deffenbacher J. L. (1984) Irrational beliefs. anger. and anxiety. J. counsel. PsychoI. 31, 391-393.