This article was downloaded by: [University of Sussex Library]

On: 09 February 2015, At: 13:14

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Personality Assessment

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20

Validation Studies of a Multifactor

Cognitive-Behavioral Anger Control
Inventory
Lisa Tsoi Hoshmand & Gary W. Austin
Published online: 10 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Lisa Tsoi Hoshmand & Gary W. Austin (1987) Validation Studies of a Multifactor
Cognitive-Behavioral Anger Control Inventory, Journal of Personality Assessment, 51:3, 417-432, DOI:
10.1207/s15327752jpa5103_9

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5103_9

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our
agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the
accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views
of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon
and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis
shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,
damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and
use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 1987,51(3), 417-432
Copyright 0 1987, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Validation Studies of a Multifactor

Cognitive-Behavioral Anger Control
Inventory
Lisa Tsoi Hoshmand
California State University, Fullerton
Gary W. Austin
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 13:14 09 February 2015

London Family Court Clinic

Two studies are reported on a new Anger Control Inventory based on a cognitive-
behavioral person-situation interaction model. In Study 1, the inventory re-
sponses of 118clinical subjects and 190 normal subjects were correlated with an an-
ger problem criterion based on observable signs. Factor analyses were conducted to
clarify the construct base of the inventory. In Study 2, comparisonswere made be-
tween the inventory responses of 100 spouse batterers and 96 normal subjects. Sig-
nificant differences between the pretreatment and posttreatment scores of 65 bat-
terers given treatment in anger control were obtained on the inventory scales,
which were found to be correlated with the problem criterion and discriminating
between the clinical and normal groups. The construct validity and clinical utility
of the Anger Control Inventory are discussed.

The clinical study of the problem of maladaptive anger control requires an as-
sessment approach that is not only methodologically sound but capable of pro-
viding clinically useful information for the detection of anger control problems
and the prescription of therapeutic interventions. The use of existing personality
tests has not been satisfactory for this purpose because few were specifically de-
signed to assess anger control per se (Staub & Conn, 1970). Tests that are pri-
marily based o n trait conceptions of aggression and hostility do not correspond
with therapeutic models that focus o n person-environment interactions in an-
ger control (Neidig & Friedman, 1984; Novaco, 1975). Such scales as the
Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (Buss & Durkee, 1957), the Hostility and Di-
rection of Hostility Questionnaire (Caine, Foulds, & Hope, 1967), and the

Authorship of this article represents equal contribution.

 MMPI Scale of Assaultiveness (Megargee, 1970; Megargee, Cook, & Men-
delsohn, 1967) were found to have inconclusive validity (Edmunds & Kendrick,
1980;Fisher, 1970; Haven, 1969).The results have been attributed partly to their
failure to account for person-situation interaction (Megargee, 1971). Although
subscribingto a person-situation interaction model, the measures by Endler and
Hunt (1968) and Novaco (1975) failed to assess cognitive and arousal variables
included in current conceptions of anger and aggression (Ferguson & Rule,
1983; Zillmann, 1983). Measures with potential clinical application such as the
Reaction Inventory (Evans & Stangeland, 1971) and the Anger Inventory
(Novaco, 1975) were originally developed on nonclinical populations. Other
criticisms have been raised about the psychometric properties of the scales cur-
rently in use (Biaggio, 1980). The more recent State-Trait Anger Scale also has
limited clinical norms (Spielberger, Jacobs, Russell, & Crane, 1983). To have
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 13:14 09 February 2015

clinical utility, instruments for the measurement of anger control should be vali-
dated on clinical populations with high treatment needs, such as those found in
psychiatric settings and domestic violence intervention programs.
This article reports the findings of two studies on the validation of a new self-
report Anger Control Inventory, which is based on a cognitive-behavioral
person-situation interaction model. This model was followed in the construc-
tion of the instrument as it is widely adopted in the treatment of anger control
problems (Margolin, Baltazar, & Gorin, 1984; Meichenbaum & Turk, 1976;
Novaco, 1975; Saunders & Hanusa, 1984). It involves operationalizingthe varia-
bles of behavior, cognition, and arousal, which are included in current concep-
tions of anger and aggression. The two validational studies were conducted to
address three questions: (a) Does this cognitive-behavioral conception of anger
control offer useful units of analysis in the clinical assessment of problems with
anger control? (b) Is there a structural consistency to the model as opera-
tionalized in the new self-report measure? (c) Which are the most useful scales in
this instrument in terms of both criterion and construct validity?

BACKGROUND OF SCALE CONSTRUCTION

The development of the new self-report inventory of anger control was based
on a construct approach (Jackson, 1970). Edmunds and Kendrick (1980) con-
cluded after an extensive review of research on aggressiveness that measures de-
veloped with a clear conceptual basis have a better guarantee of content validity,
empirical validity, and theoretical value than those developed simply on an em-
pirical basis. In the present inventory, separate scales were designed to represent
the variety of stimulus-situation factors and person-response factors conceived
to enter into interaction in the determination of anger control. The latter factors
were distinguished into cognitive, behavioral, and arousal domains for the de-
scription of person-response tendencies.
 ANGER CONTROL INVENTORY 419

A second guiding principle in the development of the inventory was that it

should be relevant to the clinical assessment and treatment of anger control
problems. The identification of relevant situations for anger is a necessary part of
assessment in anger control when treatment involves desensitization (Evans,
Hearn, & Saklofske, 1973), training in coping with the nature of provocation
(Novaco, 1975),or insight-oriented therapy where stimulus classes may be of the-
matic significance. The response repertoire of the individual also has to be as-
sessed. Cognitive-behavioral approaches to the treatment of anger control prob-
lems have taken into account the cognitive, arousal, and behavioral response
factors in a person's interaction with the situation by providing training in
adaptive appraisal, self-instruction,self-relaxation, and other responses incom-
patible with aggression (Baron, 1983; Meichenbaurn & Turk, 1976; Novaco,
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 13:14 09 February 2015

1975; Schlicter & Horan, 1979). Although the specific role of each of these re-
sponse systems and their interrelationship are still the subject of debate (Averill,
1982; Berkowitz, 1983; Konecni & Ebbesen, 1976; Zillmann, 1979), there ap-
pears to be utility in making such distinctions. In the present inv~entory,physio-
logical responses were described in terms of intensity and duration, both con-
ceived to be associated with the presence of maladaptive anger responses.
Furthermore, items were written to represent both adaptive and maladaptive re-
sponse alternatives for the behavioral and cognitive response systems. This dis-
tinction was made so as to enable the determination of treatment needs in terms
of the relative importance of deficits in adaptive skills versus maladaptive ex-
cesses in the different response systems (Bandura, 1983; Baron, 1983).
The initial item construction and scale development of this A.nger Control In-
ventory are described by Hoshmand, Austin, and Appell(1981). Existing scales
were used as references to derive items representing a broad sampling of the do-
main as explored by previous researchers (Buss & Durkee, 1957; Caine et al.,
1967; Evans & Stangeland, 1971; Novaco, 1975). Additional items were gener-
ated by three clinicians who were familiar with the cognitive-behavioral model of
anger control. The inventory consists of 10 Anger Stimulus scales and 6 Anger
Response scales, with a total of 134 items. For the Anger Stimulus scales, items
were generated to represent a variety of anger provoking situations. The items
were assigned to a class of situations on the basis of at least 75% agreement be-
tween three clinical judges who were provided with definitions of the classes of
situations. Each item was scaled on a 4-point continuum reflecting the amount of
anger each situation elicited. Items were empirically selected for ea~chscale based
on a minimum of 10% endorsement frequency of the extremes on the 4-point
scale and an item-total correlation with the designated scale greater than with
other scales. The final 10 scales, each comprised of six items, were: (a) Seeing
Others Abused, (b) Intrusion, (c)Personal Devaluation, (d) Betrayal of Trust, (e)
Minor Nuisance, (f) External Control and Coercion, (g) Verbal Abuse, (h)
Physical Abuse, (i) Unfair Treatment, and (j)Goal Blocking. An additional neu-
tral scale of six low provocation items was included to evaluate anomalies in re-
 sponding such as carelessness or acquiescence. High scores on a given scale are
interpreted as a greater tendency to be provoked by the class of situations repre-
sented by the scale. (The Anger Stimulus scales are available from the authors.)
Items were generated for the Anger Response scales to describe each of the the-
oretical domains of behavior, cognition, and arousal. In the behavioral area,
scales were constructed to represent (a) destructive or passive ways of responding
to anger (12 items) and (b) constructive or assertive ways of responding (8 items).
The destructive component was labeled the Maladaptive Behavior scale. The
constructive component was reversed-keyed and labeled the Behavioral Skill
Deficit scale. The items for the cognitive area incorporated attributional-
evaluative (Averill, 1980; Ferguson & Rule, 1983; Lazarus, Averill, & Opton,
1970) and self-instructional (Meichenbaum, 1977) content. Like the behavioral
area, the cognitive area was assessed with two scales, Maladaptive Cognition (15
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 13:14 09 February 2015

items) comprised of anger provoking thoughts, and Cognitive Skill Deficit (13
items) for which high scores indicate few adaptive cognitive alternatives. The
arousal area consisted of two scales, Arousal Intensity (14 items) and Arousal
Duration (6 items). All items in the six Anger Response scales were scaled on a
4-point basis in terms of the frequency with which an individual would emit the
described response "when angry." Items were keyed so that a high score repre-
sented more anger control difficulties. As with the Anger Stimulus scales, these
items met the same range of endorsement and item-total correlation criteria.
(The Anger Response scales are available from the authors.)
The item analysis, as described by Hoshmand et al. (1981),was based on the
responses of combined clinical and normal samples of equal size totaling 236 sub-
jects. As shown in Table 1, the Anger Stimulus scales were found to have moder-
ate to high item-total correlations (range = .55 to .74) and moderate to high in-
ternal consistency (alpha range = .54 to .81). The Anger Response scales
demonstrated moderate to high item-total correlations (range = .57 to .71) and
high internal consistency (alpha range = .76 to ,89). Test-retest over a 1-month
interval of both sets of scales based on a randomly selected normal sample of 49
showed high correlations (Anger Stimulus scales = .72 to .83; Anger Response
scales = .73 to .83), as shown in Table 1.

STUDY 1

In this first study, criterion validity of the Anger Control Inventory was evalu-
ated by correlating therapists' ratings of clients' anger-related behavior with their
scores on the inventory. Although there are limitations with clinician ratings, it
was believed that an explicit set of judgment criteria anchored on documented
and observable behaviors could enhance the ratings. In the related area of re-
search on aggression, there are indications that clinicians' ratings represent bet-
ter validity criteria than converging test data or experimentally evaluated behav-
 ANGER CONTROL INVENTORY 421

TABLE 1
Psychometric Properties of the Anger Control Inventory

Mean Item-Total Alpha Tat-Retat

Scales Cmelationa Coefficienta cmelnrionb

Stimulus Scales
Seeing Others Abused
Intrusion
Personal Devaluation
Betrayal of Trust
Minor Nuisance
External ControVCoercion
Verbal Abuse
Physical Abuse
Unfair Treatment
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 13:14 09 February 2015

Goal Blocking
Response Scales
Maladaptive Behavior
Maladaprive Cognition
Behavioral Skill Deficir
Cognitive Skill Deficir
Arousal Inrensity
Arousal Duration

aN = 236 (clinical and normal subjects). bN = 49 (normal subsample).

iors such as responses on the aggression machine (Buss, Durkee, & Baer, 1956;
Megargee, 1979). The criterion approach was recommended by Edmunds and
Kendrick (1980) who observed that the research evidence on aggression-related
assessment is short on criterion validity,although it abounds in construct valida-
tion work largely of an analogue nature. Criterion validity was further assessed,
in this case, for a normal sample of university students. Reports by Averill (1982,
1983) suggest some confidence in the self-judgment of anger by the layperson.
Self-rated difficulties with anger were used as the criterion with the normal
sample. The different inventory scales were examined for their relative strength
of correlation with the criterion in each case.
The construct validity of the Anger Control Inventory was examined by ex-
ploratory factor analyses to determine if its factor structure would correspond to
the various situation-stimulus and person-response distinctions in the model.
The consistency of the factor structure was examined across the two samples.

Method

Subjects. The first study involved a total of 118 clinical subjects and 190 col-
lege student subjects. The clinical sample consisted of adolescent and adult cli-
ents, approximately half inpatient and half outpatient, from a psychiatric hospi-
 tal. There were 65 males and 53 females, with a mean age of 29.3 years (SD =
13.9). The selection criteria were: (a) ability to participate in group testing, (b) in-
formed consent, and (c) availability of background information and staff obser-
vation for the criterion judgments. These clinical subjects were heterogeneous in
terms of the extent of anger problems.
The normal sample consisted of 190 college subjects recruited from an under-
graduate class in psychology. They were selected on the basis of: (a) no current
involvement with psychiatric or psychological treatment and (b) informed
consent. This college sample consisted of 82 males and 108 females, with a mean
age of 19.26 years (SD = 2.43).
The combined sample of 308 subjects was characterized by a distribution of
47.7% males and 52.3% females, and a mean age of 24.3 years (SD = 7.1). It rep-
resented a relatively heterogeneous population as far as social background and
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 13:14 09 February 2015

degree of psychological adjustment.

Anger problem criterion. The criterion of difficulty with anger control was a
checklist rating based on 10 signs of anger problems derived from a literature re-
view and clinical experience. Signs were defined by reference to observable be-
haviors and complaints associated with anger problems. These signs were: (a) ex-
pressed personal dissatisfaction with own ways of dealing with anger, (b) verbal
behavior disruptive of interpersonal relationships, (c) property damage, (d) phys-
ical harm to self, (e) physical harm to others, (f) verbal threats, (g) expressed
sullen, hostile attitudes, (h) reported fantasies or ideas of anger/aggression, (i)
high intensity of anger expression, and 0') high frequency of anger expression.
The 10 signs were checked as present or absent, and the number of signs en-
dorsed summed to a total score forming the anger problem criterion.
Fur the clinical sample, each patient was evaluated by a therapist from psy-
chology, psychiatry, social work, or nursing who was able to observe the pa-
tient's behavior and had access to the patient's documented history. The internal
consistency (alpha coefficient)for the scores on the patients' criterion was .82 (M
= 3.59, SD = 2.89).
Because no similar external raters were available for the student sample, each
subject was asked to make a self-judgment based on the same checklist of signs.
The internal consistency (alpha coefficient for the students' criterion was .62 (M
= 2.22, SD = 1.90). The nature of the criterion checklist had been separately re-
searched (Hoshmand & Austin, 1985).

Procedure. The patients were administered both sections of the Anger

Control Inventory in small groups and individual testing sessions in which each
subject independently completed the inventory under the same instructions.
Therapist criterion ratings on the anger problem checklist were completed
within 2 weeks of testing, without knowledge of the subject's inventory re-
 sponses. Students were administered in group testing the anger problem
checklist, followed by the Anger Control Inventory.

Results
Criterion validity. The criterion validity of the Anger Control Inventory
was evaluated by correlating the anger problem criterion (total anger signs score)
with each of the scales. These results are presented in Table 2. For the patient
sample, the low significant correlations of the therapist-rated criterion with nine
of the Anger Stimulus scales ranged from 2 1 to .31. Low to moderately signifi-
cant correlations were found for the Anger Response scales (.I9 to .47), with the
two Maladaptive scales showing the strongest relationship to difficulty with an-
ger control. Similar results were found for the student sample, with eight Anger
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 13:14 09 February 2015

Stimulus scales showing low significant correlations with the self-rated criterion
(.I5 to .25) and all Anger Response scales showing low to moderately significant
corrrelations (.25 to .56). Again, the Maladaptive scales were most strongly re-
lated to the criterion. Hence, maladaptive reactions in the behavioral and cogni-
tive areas as measured by these particular Anger Response scales in the inven-
tory were most saliently related to signs of an anger control problem.

TABLE 2
Sample Norms and Correlation of Inventory Scales With the Criterion

Clinical Samplea Normal sampleb

Correlation - Correlation
Scales M SD With Criterion M SD With Criterion

Stimulus Scales
Seeing Others Abused
Intrusion
Personal Devaluation
Betrayal of Trust
Minor Nuisance
External Control/Coercion
Verbal Abuse
Physical Abuse
Unfair Treatment
Goal Blocking
Response Scales
Maladaptive Behavior
Maladaptive Cognition
Behavioral Skill Deficit
Cognitive Skill Deficit
Arousal Intensity
Arousal Duration
 424 HOSHMAND AND AUSTIN

Construct validity. The Anger-Control Inventory was designed to assess

the situation component of provocation as well as the multiple response systems
that enter into a person's interaction with the situation. To evaluate the hypoth-
esized structure of this model of anger control, the 16 scales were entered into
two factor analyses, one for each sample of subjects. Using principal component
analysis, 16 factors were extracted. On the basis of the Scree Test (Cattell, 1978),
four factors were considered meaningful in each sample, which together ex-
plained a total of 71.4% of the variance in the patient sample and 70.7% of the
variance in the student sample. The results of the varimax rotation of these two
sets of four factors are presented in Table 3. Although the specific factor pattern
varied across the two samples, the Anger Stimulus and Anger Response scales
loaded on separate factors, lending support to the separate evaluation of these
anger control dimensions.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 13:14 09 February 2015

The initial factor analysis of the 16 scales resulted in the Anger Stimulus scales
forming the first factor(s); consequently, it somewhat obscured the structure of
the Anger Response scales. Because the latter were more strongly related to the
anger problem criterion, further exploratory factor analysis of these six response

TABLE 3
Factor Analysis of Inventory Scalesa

Clinical Sampleb N d Sampleb

Factors Factors

Scales I 2 3 4 I 2 3 4

Stimulus Scale
Seeing Others Abused
Intrusion
Personal Devaluation
Betrayal of Trust
Minor Nuisance
External Control/Coercion
Verbal Abuse
Physical Abuse
Unfair Treatment
Goal Blocking
Response Scales
Maladaptive Behavior
Maladaptive Cognition
Behavioral Skill Deficit
Cognitive Skill Deficit
Arousal Intensity
Arousal Duration
% Variance
-

aFactor loadings less than 0.30 have been omitted for clarity. ' N = 118. 'N = 190.
 TABLE 4
Factor Analysis of Inventow Response Scalesa

Response Scales

Maladaptive Behavior .34 .33 .68

Maladaptive Cognition .3 1 .65
Behavioral Skill Deficit .80
Cognitive Skill Deficit .79
Arousal Intensity .81 .34
Arousal Duration .89
% Variance 52.5 22.4 10.5
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 13:14 09 February 2015

aCombined samples, N = 308. b~actorloadings less than 0.30 have

been omitted for clarity.

scales was conducted. Using a procedure identical to the first analysis, three very
similar factors were found with each subject sample, which were subsequently
combined. The results of the factor analysis of the full sample of 308 subjects are
presented in Table 4. The three factors combined accounted for 85.5% of the
variance. Factor 1 was clearly demarcated by both Arousal scales, with the
Maladaptive scales contributing slightly. Factor 2, with heavy loadings kom
Behavioral and Cognitive Skill Deficit, was clearly a Skill Deficit factor. Factor 3,
with the maladpative aspects of behavior and cognition providing the most sub-
stantial loadings, can be considered the Maladaptive factor.

Efiects of age and sex. To explore the effects of subject characteristics, the
responses of the full sample were examined in relation to age and sex. Age was
found to have a significantly low negative correlation (-.22, p .< .05) with the
total score of the Anger Response scales. Analyses of variance on all of the
subscale scores showed no sex differences at the p .< .O1 level for any of the
subscales.

STUDY 2
In this study, the construct validity of the inventory was further evaluated by
testing for hypothesized differences between contrast groups of clinical subjects
with problems of anger control and normal subjects not selected for anger prob-
lems. In addition, the clinical utility of the new measure was demonstrated by
its sensitivity to changes with cognitive-behavioral treatment in a sample of
spouse batterers. It was expected that the different scales in the instrument
would show differential utility in detecting sample differences as well as changes
with treatment.
 426 HOSHMAND AND AUSTIN

Method

Subjects. Two new samples were recruited for the second study. A group of
100 spouse batterers seeking voluntary or court-ordered treatment served as one
sample under informed consent. A group of 96 normal subjects served as a sec-
ond sample. These subjects were recruited on a volunteer basis from the commu-
nity and also through a counselor training program at the university. The clin-
ical sample consisted of all males, with a mean age of 37.62 years (SD = 12.12).
The normal sample consisted of 32 males and 64 females, with a mean age of
34.22 years (SD = 7.87).

Procedure. Both samples were administered the Anger Control Inventory

in group testing. With the clinical sample, pretreatment data were obtained on
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 13:14 09 February 2015

all subjects for comparison with the normal sample. The pretreatment and post-
treatment responses of 65 of the clinical subjects were obtained on the inventory
and analyzed for sensitivity t o treatment. All of the spouse batterers participated
in a standard treatment program conducted by the same highly experienced
therapist at the outpatient setting from which they were recruited. The treat-
ment program consisted of 12 weeks of training, using a group format. The treat-
ment procedures were based o n a cognitive-behavioral model of anger and ag-
gression control, which corresponds to the assessment model. Treatment
emphasis was on short-term anger control through behavioral avoidance, cogni-
tive restructuring, and cognitive and behavioral skills training.

Results
Group differences. The scores of the normal group and batterer group were
compared on each of the inventory scales with analysis of variance. As presented
in Table 5, four of the Anger Stimulus scales and five of the Anger Response
scales showed significant differences. The batterers were less sensitive than the
normal subjects to Seeing Others Abused. r h e y appeared to be more provoked
by the classes of situations characterized by Intrusion and Goal Blocking. Above
all, they scored significantly higher on Physical Abuse.
The group differences obtained o n the Anger Response scales were greater
than on the Anger Stimulus scales, with the total response score showing an F(1,
194) = 39.36, p < .0001. As indicated on Table 5, all of the Anger Response
scales except Cognitive Skill Deficit differentiated significantly between the
groups. The greatest differences were obtained o n the Maladaptive Cognition
and Behavior scales.

Sex differences. T o further rule out the possibility of sex differences

contributing to group differences, the inventory responses of males and females
in the normal sample were compared. No significant differences were found at
the p < .01 level on any of the inventory scales.
 ANGER CONTROL INVENTORY 427

TABLE 5
Comparison of Normal and Batterers Sample

Normal Samplea Batterers h p l &

Scales M SD M SD F Ratioc
Stimulus Scales
Seeing Others Abused
Intrusion
Personal Devaluation
Betrayal of Trust
Minor Nuisance
External Control/Coercion
Verbal Abuse
Physical Abuse
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 13:14 09 February 2015

Goal Blocking
Response Scales
Maladaptive Behavior
Maladaptive Cognition
Behavioral Skill Deficit
Cognitive Skill Deficit
Arousal Intensity
Arousal Duration
- ---- -- -

aN = 96. b~ = 100. COnlysignificant F ratios (df1, 194) are reported.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .005. ****p < .0001.

Changes in inventory scores with treatment. The pretreatment and

posttreatment scores of the 65 batterers were compared on each inventory scale
using the t test, with results summarized in Table 6. Of the Anger Stimulus
scales, significant differences were found on Betrayal of Trust, Physical Abuse,
Unfair Treatment, and Goal Blocking. The total Anger Stimulus scales score
also showed a significant overall difference, t = 2.51, p < .01.
Greater pretreatment-posttreatment changes were found on the Anger Re-
sponse scales, with significant differences on Maladaptive Behavior, Behavioral
Skill Deficit, Maladaptive Cognition, and Cognitive Skill Deficit. The total re-
sponse scale scores showed significant differences, t = 5.24, p < .0001, with the
total Maladaptive response score and the total Skill Deficit score both signifi-
cant. The two Arousal subscales showed no significant differences.

DISCUSSION

The Anger Control Inventory was developed to assess the situational compo-
nents and multiple response factors that are conceived to determine anger con-
trol. The results of the two studies suggest that the Anger Response scales, rela-
 TABLE 6
Pretreatment and Posttreatment Scores of Batterers Groupa

Pretreatment Posmeament

Scales M SD M SD t

Stimulus Scales
Seeing Others Abused
Intrusion
Personal Devaluation
Betrayal of Trust
Minor Nuisance
External Control/Coercion
Verbal Abuse
Physical Abuse
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 13:14 09 February 2015

Unfair Treatment
Goal Blocking
Response Scales
Maladaptive Behavior
Maladaptive Cognition
Behavioral Skill Deficit
Cognitive Skill Deficit
Arousal Intensity
Arousal Duration

'N = 65. b ~ n lsignificant

y t values are reported.
* p < .05.**p < .01.***p < .001.****p < .Owl.

tive to the Anger Stimulus scales, seem to have stronger validity and structural
consistency.
In terms of criterion validity, the Anger Stimulus scales showed low correla-
tion with the criterion, suggesting that differential sensitivity to provocational
stimuli was only marginally related to the more overt signs of anger problems.
Thus, contrary t o a strong stimulus view on angry aggression (Berkowitz, 1983),
reaction of anger to a stimulus situation may not be associated with the overt
display of anger control problems. This finding seems to converge with the re-
sults of Averill (1983) who reported that when surveyed about responses when
angry, actual aggression was reported by subjects in only 10% of the anger epi-
sodes, whereas felt impulses toward aggression were reported in 40% of the epi-
sodes. Averill suggested that the experience of anger is probably compatible with
a wide range of behaviors and impulses. Hence, contrary to total situational de-
terminism, sensitivity to provocational stimuli as measured by the present inven-
tory may not be an adequate predictor of actual anger control ~roblems.
In contrast, the Anger Response scales (especially the Behavioral and Cogni-
tive Maladaptive scales) showed stronger relationships with the signs of anger
control problems. This finding may have been anticipated for the behavioral
scales in view of the behavioral nature of the criterion; however, the strong per-
 ANGER CONTROL INVENTORY 429

formance of the Maladaptive Cognition scale ~rovidedsupport for the contribu-

tion of negative attributions and ill-directed self-instructions to ineffective anger
control. Treatment programs that seek to reduce or neutralize such cognitions
seem justified by this finding. On the other hand, the fact that the Cognitive and
Behavioral Skill1 Deficit scales (which refer to the lack of adaptive response
alternatives) showed only low to moderate relationships with the criterion re-
quires interpretation. One possibility is that the items did not sample the full do-
main of responses used in effective anger control. Another ~ossibilityis that
some other mechanism, such as short-term behavioral/cognitive strategies of
avoidance, is more frequently employed than the sampled skills. Because the role
of skill deficits was generally borne out by the results of the second study, their
therapeutic relevance is still supported.
For the inventory as a whole, rather similar patterns of correlation of the crite-
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 13:14 09 February 2015

rion with the inventory scales were obtained for both subject: samples. Even
though the criterion was therapist's rating for the patients and self-judgment for
the students, the results suggest some stability in the relationship between the in-
ventory responses and anger problem criterion, with the Anger Response scales
showing stronger relationships with the criterion than the Anger Stimulus
scales, as noted. The Arousal scales showed a mixed pattern of relationshipswith
the signs on the criterion checklist, which is perhaps consistent with the fact that
the role of arousal in anger control varies with its intensity (Zillmann, 1979). It is
also a common clinical observation that an individual's reporting of signs of
physiological arousal is often incomplete without awareness training, which was
probably true for many of the subjects in the first study.
The construct validity of the Anger Inventory was partially evaluated by the
factor analysis in Study 1, which indicated that the Anger Stimulus scales and
the Anger Response scales form separate factors. The Anger Response scales
showed structures congruent with the multiple-response-system conception used
in the design of the inventory. They seemed to initially load on Arousal, Skill
Deficit, and Maladaptive factors. Repeated factor analysis for the entire sample
yielded these three distinct factors again, underscoring the integrity of these re-
sponse dimensions. The Arousal scales formed the first factor with some small
loadings from both maladaptive scales, suggesting the relevance of physiological
arousal in anger response. The second and third factors, labeled Skill Deficit and
Maladaptive factors, suggest that maladaptive versus adaptive aspects of both re-
sponse systems emerged as the more congruent elements in the determination of
an anger response.
Construct validity and the clinical utility of the Anger Control Inventory
were further demonstrated in Study 2. The inventory successfully differentiated
between the clinical and normal samples, with the batterers scoring in the direc-
tion of more anger problems on many subscales. Although the two groups were
different in sex composition, the results of both Study 1 and Study 2 indicated
that the group differencesin inventory responses were not likely to have been a
 function of sex of the subject. The mean ages of the two groups were comparable
and would not have contributed to the obtained sample differences as the nor-
mal subjects were slightly younger. If age was a factor, Study 1 suggested that it
would have been in the direction of reducing the group differences because
younger subjects seemed to have a slight tendency to report more anger control
difficulties.
The specific group differences found to be significant are highly meaningful.
The batterers showed less sensitivity to Seeing Others Abused and reported a
greater tendency to be provoked by Physical Abuse, Intrusion, and the frustra-
tions of Goal Blocking. Two of these areas (Physical Abuse and Goal Blocking)
also showed improvements with treatment, as indicated by the pretreat-
ment-posttreatment comparisons. The major differences on the Maladaptive re-
sponse scales and Behavior Skill Deficit relative to the smaller differences on
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 13:14 09 February 2015

Cognitive Skill Deficit may suggest that anger control problems, such as those as-
sociated with spouse battering, are more a function of excesses in maladaptive
cognitions and behaviors as well as behavior deficits than a function of deficits in
self-instruction and adaptive attributional-evaluative responses. The possibility
is granted that the inventory items might not have sampled those particular
adaptive cognitive skills in anger control that could have differentiated batterers
from normal subjects.
Overall, the inventory appeared to be sensitive to changes with treatment in
the clinical subjects who have completed a program of anger control treatment
based on a cognitive-behavioral approach similar to the assessment model.
Provocational sensitivity that the Anger Stimulus scales were designed to meas-
ure was reduced overall, and in several areas as noted. The Anger Response
scales showed the greatest changes in the reduction of both Maladaptive re-
sponse and Skill Deficit scores. Consistent with the cognitive-behavioral skill
training emphasis in the treatment program, significant changes were in fact ob-
tained in both the cognitive and behavioral domains. The finding that the
Arousal scales did not show pretreatment-posttreatment changes is also consist-
ent with the fact that no extensive training in arousal reduction, such as relaxa-
tion techniques, was offered in the program. The Arousal Duration subscale in
particular measures muscle tension. It remains to be determined as to whether
the Arousal scales would be sensitive to changes with such specific intervention.
By the demonstrated differences between the batterer group and normal sub-
jects and by the sensitivity of the inventory to relevant changes with treatment,
its potential for clinical use seems promising. The possibility remains, however,
that response biasing factors may be present in the context of clinical assessment
and treatment. Future test users are cautioned to employ test-independent data
and multiple measures of anger problems to check for their convergence with the
inventory results, especially in evaluating treatment outcome. Continued re-
search and application of the inventory may shed light on the validity of the
 ANGER CONTROL INVENTORY 431

cognitive-behavioral person-situation interaction model that is increasingly

used in the clinical assessment and treatment of anger control problems.

REFERENCES
Averill, J. R. (1980). A constructivist view of emotion. InR. Plutchik & H. KePlerman (Eds.), Theories
of emotion. New York: Academic.
Averill, J. R. (1982). Anger and aggrwion: An essay a emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Averill, J. R. (1983). Studies on anger and aggression: Implications for theories of emotion. American
Psychologist, 38, 1145-1 160.
Bandura, A. (1983). Psychological mechanisms of aggression. In R. G. Geen TS E. I. Donnerstein
(Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reuiews (Vol. 1). New York: Academic.
Baron, R. A. (1983). The control of human aggression: A strategy based on incompatible responses.
In R. G. Geen & E. I. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggrasion: Theoreticaland empirical reviews (Vol. 2). New
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 13:14 09 February 2015

York: Academic.
Berkowitz, L. (1983).The experience of anger as a parallel process in the display of impulsive "angryn
aggression. In R. G. Geen & E. I. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews
(Vol. 1). New York: Academic.
Biaggio, M. K. (1980). Assessment of anger arousal. Journal of PersonalityAssessment, 44,289-298.
Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). A n inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of
Conrulting Psychology, 21,343-348.
Buss, A. H., Durkee, A., & Baer, M. (1956). The measurement of hostility in clinical situations.
Journal of Abnanal Social Psychology, 52,84-86.
Caine, T. M., Foulds, G. A., & Hope, K. (1967). Manual of the Hostility and Direction of Hostility
Qwstionnaire.London, England: University of London Press.
Cattell, R. B. (1978). The scientific ure of faam analysis in behavioral and life sciences. New York:
Plenum.
Edmunds, G., & Kendrick, D. C. (1980). The measurement of human aggressiueness. Chichester,
England: E. Horwood.
Endler, N. S., & Hunt, J. McV. (1968). S-R inventories of hostility and comparisons of the
proponions of variance from persons, responses, and situations for hostility and anxiousness.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9,309-315.
Evans, D. R., Hearn, M. T., & Saklofske, D. (1973). Anger, arousal, and systematic desensitization.
Psychological Reports, 32,625-626.
Evans, D. R., & Stangeland, M. (1971). Development of the Reaction Inventory to measure anger.
Psychological Reports, 29,412414.
Ferguson, T. J., &Rule, B. G. (1983).An attributional perspective on anger and aggression. In R. G.
Geen & E. I. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical revtews (Vol. 1). New York:
Academic.
Fisher, G. (1970). Discriminating violence emanating from over-controlled versus under-controlled
aggressivity. British Journal of S o d Clinical Psychology, 9,54-59.
Haven, H. (1969). Racial differences on the MMPI 0 - H (over-controlled hostility) Scale. Federd
Cmectional Institution Raearch Repurt, pp. 1-9.
Hoshmand, L. T., & Austin, G. W. (1985). Criteria in lay self-judgment of anger control. Journal of
Research in Personality, 19, 89-94.
Hoshmand, L. T., Austin, G. W., & AppeIl, J. (1981, August). The diagnosis and assessment of anger
control problems. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los
Angeles.
 432 HOSHMAND AND AUSTIN

Jackson, D. N. (1970). A sequential system for personality scale development. In C. D. Spielberger

(Ed.), Current topics in clinical and community psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Academic.
Konecni, V. I., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1976).Disinhibition versus the cathartic effect: Artifact and sub-
stance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 352-365.
Lazarus, R. S., Averill, J. R., & Opton, E. M., Jr. (1970).Toward a cognitive theory of emotion. In M.
Arnold (Ed.), Feelings and emotions. New York: Academic.
Margolin, G., Baltazar, P., & Gorin, L. (1984). An interactional approach to marital violence. The
Cognitive Therapist, 6, 12-14.
Megargee, E. I. (1970).The prediction of violence with psychological tests. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.),
Current topics in clinical and community psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Academic.
Megargee, E. I. (1971).The role of inhibition in the assessment and understanding of violence. In J.
C. Singer (Ed.), The control of aggression and violence. New York: Academic.
Megargee, E. I. (1979). Classifjing criminal offenders. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Megargee, E. I., Cook, P.E., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (1967).Development and validation of an MMPI
scale of assaultiveness in overcontrolled individuals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 72, 519-528.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 13:14 09 February 2015

Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modification. New York: Plenum.

Meichenbaum, D., & Turk, D. (1976). The cognitive-behavioralmanagement of anxiety, anger and
pain. In P. Davidson (Ed.), The behavioral management of anxiety, depression, and pain. New York:
Brunner Mazel.
Neidig, P. H., & Friedman, D. H. (1984). Spouse abuse: A treatment program for couples. Champaign,
IL: Research Press.
Novaco, R. W. (1975). Anger control: The development and evaluation of an expe~imentaltreatment.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Saunders, D. G., & Hanusa, D. R. (1984, August). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of abllsive husbands:
The short-term effects of group therapy. Paper presented at the second National Conference for Fam-
ily Violence Researchers, Durham, NH.
Schlicter, K. J., & Horan, J. J. (1979).Effects of stress-inoculationon the anger and aggression management
skills of institutionalized juvenile delinquents. Paper presented at the meeting of the Educational Re-
search Association, San Francisco.
Spielberger, C. D., Jacobs, G., Russell, S., & Crane, R. S. (1983). Assessment of anger: The
State-Trait Anger Scale. In J. N. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.),Advances in personality assess-
ment (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Staub, E., & Conn, L. K. (1970). Aggression. In C. G. Costello (Ed.), Symptoms in psychopathology.
New York: Wiley.
Zillmann, D. (1979). Hostility and aggresszon. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Zillmann, D. (1983). Arousal and aggression. In R. G. Geen & E. I. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression:
Theoretical and empirical reviews (Vol. 1). New York: Academic.

Lisa T. Hoshmand, PhD

Department of Counseling
California State University, Fullerton
EC-105A
Fullerton, C A 92634

Received October 17, I986

Revised February 10, 1987