See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225227988

Anger, Aggression, and Irrational Beliefs in Adolescents

Article  in  Cognitive Therapy and Research · June 2010

DOI: 10.1007/s10608-009-9293-3

CITATIONS READS

52 2,381

4 authors, including:

Grace Kong Ryan J Fuller

Yale University New York Behavioral Health
102 PUBLICATIONS   2,061 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   178 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Raymond A Digiuseppe
St. John's University
156 PUBLICATIONS   3,087 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Practitioners Guide to REBT 3rd Edition View project

Romantic Partner Anger Scale View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Raymond A Digiuseppe on 31 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cogn Ther Res (2011) 35:199–208
DOI 10.1007/s10608-009-9293-3
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Anger, Aggression, and Irrational Beliefs in Adolescents
Christopher J. Fives • Grace Kong •
J. Ryan Fuller • Raymond DiGiuseppe
Published online: 9 January 2010
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract This study examined whether a combination of
anger, hostility, and irrational beliefs, i.e., intolerance of
rules frustration, intolerance of work frustration, demands
for fairness, and self-downing would predict physical,
verbal, and indirect aggression and peer ratings of
aggression. Follow-up analysis tested gender as a moder-
ator of the relations between irrational beliefs and aggres-
sion, and anger and aggression. One hundred thirty-five
high school-aged adolescents completed measures of irra-
tional beliefs, anger, hostility, and aggression. Results
demonstrated that gender, anger, and an irrational belief of
intolerance of rules frustration predicted physical aggres-
sion, while anger and irrational belief of intolerance of
rules frustration uniquely predicted indirect aggression.
Anger alone predicted verbal aggression. Males were more
likely to report higher rate of physical aggression and were
voted to be more aggressive by their peers. However,
gender did not moderate the relations between cognition
and aggression, and anger and aggression. Treatment and
research implications are discussed.
Keywords Anger
Aggression
Irrational beliefs

Adolescents
C. J. Fives
G. Kong (&)
J. R. Fuller
R. DiGiuseppe
Psychology Department, St. John’s University,
8000 Utopia Parkway, Jamaica, NY 11439, USA
e-mail: grace.kong@yale.edu
C. J. Fives
G. Kong
J. R. Fuller
R. DiGiuseppe
Albert Ellis Institute, 45 East 65 Street, New York,
NY 10069, USA
Introduction
Adolescent anger and aggression have become an
important concern in recent years, given the incidents of
school violence. In particular, the mental health and
educational communities have sought to understand the
factors related to adolescent anger and aggression. Anger
and aggression can potentially result in negative emo-
tional, physical, behavioral, educational, and therapeutic
outcomes. Anger has been associated with serious harm in
adolescents as well. In the worst case scenario, homicides
may result. Impulsivity and anger may contribute signif-
icantly to child and adolescent suicidal behavior (Stein
et al. 1998).
Anger is an affective state, whereas aggression is
viewed as any behavior intended to harm (Kassinove and
Sukhodolsky 1995). Various forms exist, including phys-
ical, verbal, and indirect aggression (DiGiuseppe and
Tafrate 2004). Physical and verbal aggression are readily
observable behaviors, whereas hostility and indirect
aggression are more covert in nature, and therefore, more
difficult to observe. Because anger, unlike other negative
emotions such as anxiety or depression, produces a ten-
dency to approach the eliciting stimulus (Scherer and
Wallbott 1994), physical, verbal, and indirect aggression
are potential outcomes. If an adolescent’s anger occurs
with aggression, a host of additional negative conse-
quences may ensue. Aside from immediate physical harm,
possible long-term outcomes include peer difficulties
(Pope and Bierman 1999), early school withdrawal, future
antisocial behavior (Kupersmidt and Coie 1990), and
substance abuse (Moss and Kirisci 1995). Adolescents
who demonstrate aggressive/destructive behaviors have a
poor therapeutic prognosis (Gabel and Shindledecker
1991).
123
200
Although much is known about the negative outcomes
of anger and aggression, we know little about the variables
that elicit anger and aggression in adolescents. Cognitive
theorists of anger and aggression such as Beck (1999),
Bandura (1986), Crick and Dodge (1994), DiGiuseppe and
Tafrate (2007), and Ellis (1977) have proposed that
thoughts play an important role in the initiation of anger
and aggression.
Empirical Support for the Influence of Cognition
Considerable research supports the links among cognition,
anger, and aggressive behavior. More specifically,
researchers have demonstrated that hostile attribution bia-
ses, social problem solving deficits, and various social-
cognitive learning cognitions (e.g. self-efficacy, outcome
expectations, outcome values) relate to reactive and proac-
tive aggression in children and adolescents (Boldizar et al.
1989; Crick and Dodge 1989; Dodge 1980; Dodge et al.
1990; Joffe et al. 1990; Keltikangas-Jorvinen and Kangas
1988; Lochman and Dodge 1994; Matthys et al. 1999;
Richard and Dodge 1982; Slaby and Guerra 1988; Steinberg
and Dodge 1983; Webster-Stratton and Lindsay 1999).
Less research supports the link between irrational
beliefs and anger in child and adolescent populations.
Tentative support for the association between these two
constructs in child and adolescent populations comes from
a study by Lowery (1990). This investigator found that a
conduct-disordered population endorsed more self-repor-
ted irrational beliefs than anxiety/mood-disordered and
regular educational populations. Noteworthy is that con-
duct-disordered youth frequently demonstrate anger and
aggression (Dadds et al. 1992). Research investigating the
relation of cognitions and anger in youth has focused
almost exclusively on hostile attributions of blame (Crick
and Dodge 1994), and few studies have examined irra-
tional beliefs. However, evidence exists that irrational
beliefs and cognitive distortions positively correlate with
anger in adults (Azoulay 2000; Eckhardt et al. 1998;
DiGiuseppe and Froh 2002).
The Role of Emotion, Cognition, and Hostility
on Aggression
Anger has been linked to aggressive and other forms of
violent behaviors. However, emotional experience of anger
does not always lead to antagonistic responses (Averill
1983), and aggressive behaviors do not always occur in the
experience of anger. Different forms of aggression may be
interrelated and related to psychological constructs such as
hostility, anger, and irrational beliefs. These cognitive and
emotional associates may play an important role in
123
Cogn Ther Res (2011) 35:199–208
translating anger into aggression. For example, anger may
interfere with higher-level cognitive processes involved in
processing anger, and thereby, reducing the inhibition of
aggression.
We attempted to explain aggression in youth by juxta-
posing related concepts such as emotion and cognition
within the framework of Rational Emotive Behavior
Therapy (REBT) theory. The theory postulates that the
emotional consequence (Ce) of the anger experience
increases as the probability of the behavioral consequence
(Cb) such as aggression increases (DiGiuseppe and Tafrate
2007; Ellis 2003). Berkowitz’s Neoassocianistic Model
(1994) also posits that mounting negative affect (e.g.,
anger) increases the likelihood of an aggressive response.
Unfortunately, studies examining the role of irrational
beliefs in both its relation to Cb (aggression) and Ce
(anger) have not been conducted. Results of existing
studies have suggested that emotional arousal has a highly
negative effect on aggressive children’s interpretational
accuracy (Dodge and Somberg 1987; Gehlbach 2001).
Children’s feelings of distress in social situations may also
depend on the causal attributions that they make in such
situations (Crick and Ladd 1993). These studies provide
evidence that negative affect and cognition are interde-
pendent concepts, and the combination of cognition and
emotion may better predict aggression.
REBT theory hypothesizes that certain irrational beliefs,
namely thoughts relating to intolerance of rules frustration,
intolerance of work frustration, and demands for fairness,
lead to anger (Bernard and Cronan 1999; Hazaleus and
Deffenbacher 1985; Zwemer and Deffenbacher 1984). The
irrational beliefs and anger are thought to be positively
correlated, and together, they may better predict
aggression.
Many cognitive behavioral theories, including REBT,
appear to draw clear distinctions between cognitions and
emotions. Likewise, some anger theorists believe emo-
tional experiences, aggression, and attitudes are distinct
entities (Spielberger 1999). However, others argue that
they may represent a single phenomenon on a continuum
(Salzinger 1995). In fact, even Ellis (1962) suggests that
such hard-line distinctions between cognitions and emo-
tions, although useful for conceptualization, may not be
truly accurate. Attitudes or the concept of ‘‘hot’’ cognitions
are often used to address these constructs. Hostility is the
attitude most frequently associated with aggression. Spe-
cifically, hostility is defined as negative attitudes of
resentment and suspiciousness that increase the likelihood
of an anger response (DiGiuseppe and Tafrate 2007).
Although hostility is defined as an attitudinal or a cognitive
concept, it appears to be influenced by the emotion of
anger, and therefore, the two constructs are interdependent
rather than orthogonal. If emotion (e.g., anger) and
Cogn Ther Res (2011) 35:199–208
cognition (e.g., IBs) are expected to result in aggression,
then adding hostility can enhance the prediction of
aggression.
Gender Differences
Physical aggression presents itself differently for males and
females. Males are more likely to use weapons, commit
homicides, and engage in dangerous forms of physical
aggressions (Cornell and Loper 1998; Deffenbacher et al.
1996; Singer and Flannery 2000). One previous explana-
tion for the gender difference in physical aggression is that
anger leads to aggression, and boys and girls tend to
experience anger differently. However, a meta-analysis
failed to find gender difference in anger (Archer 2004). If
males and females do not differ in their level of anger but
males are more prone to engage in risky forms of physical
aggression, perhaps varying cognitions can explain the
progression of differential aggression.
Hypothesis
The present investigation sought to extend our knowledge
of adolescent anger, aggression, and cognitions by inves-
tigating the relationships among them. We then tested
whether a combination of anger, hostility, and irrational
beliefs better predicts aggression. An aggregated total
irrational belief score may oversimplify the results because
varying cognitions are grouped into a single variable.
Therefore, the secondary goal was to identify specific
irrational beliefs that can best predict differential aggres-
sive behaviors. In addition, we examined gender as a
moderator of the relations between irrational beliefs and
aggression, and between anger and aggression. Previous
studies have shown that males are more aggressive (e.g.,
Hyde 2005). Perhaps, the pathway to develop aggression
may vary as a function of gender.
Method
Participants
Participants included 135 adolescents recruited from four
grade levels (grades 9, 10, 11, and 12) of the social studies
department of a high school in Long Island, New York.
The sample had a mean age of 15.04 (SD = .79;
range = 14 to 17), and 77 were female and 58 were male.
The ethnic makeup of the sample included 74.8% Cauca-
sian, 10.4% Asian, 9.6% Hispanic, .7% American Indian,
and 4.4% Other. The Other category consisted of individ-
uals identifying themselves as persons of mixed descent.
201
Instruments
Demographic Questionnaire
The participants completed a brief demographic question-
naire. This questionnaire asked participants to provide
information pertaining to their ethnicity, age, and grade
level.
Child and Adolescent Scale of Irrationality
The Child and Adolescent Scale of Irrationality (CASI;
Bernard and Cronan 1999) assesses irrational beliefs in
children and adolescents ranging from 10 to 17 years of age.
The CASI consists of 49 self-report Likert scale items that
form four scales: Self-Downing (e.g., I think I’m worthless if
someone disapproves or rejects me.), Intolerance of Rules
Frustration (e.g., People shouldn’t always have to obey rules
and behave well.), Intolerance of Work Frustration (e.g., The
worst thing in life is having to work on things that are bor-
ing.), and Demands for Fairness (e.g., Classmates should
always be fair and friendly.). These four subscales combined
to form an aggregate measure of irrationality. This measure
has adequate internal consistency, with alpha coefficients
ranging from .60 to .90. Correlations of the CASI with self-
report measures of anxiety, curiosity, anger, and with
teachers’ reports of behavioral problems, emotional distress,
and a lack of academic effort or motivation provided
evidence for discriminant and convergent validities.
Aggression Questionnaire
The Aggression Questionnaire (AQ; Buss and Warren
2000), a self-report measure of anger and aggression, was
used to assess participants’ levels of anger and aggression.
This 34-item Likert scale can be used with individuals
between the ages of 9 and 88. The AQ provides an overall
measure of anger and aggression (AQ Total), as well as five
additional subscales: Physical Aggression (e.g., I may hit
someone if he or she provokes me.), Verbal Aggression
(e.g., When people annoy me, I may tell them what I think
of them.), Anger (e.g., At times I get very angry for no
good reason at all.), Hostility (e.g., At times I feel I have
gotten a raw deal out of life.), and Indirect Aggression
(e.g., When someone really irritates me, I might give him
or her the silent treatment.). The internal reliabilities for
this instrument in this sample were: AQ Total (.94),
Physical Aggression (.88), Verbal Aggression (.76), Anger
(.78), Hostility (.82), and Indirect Aggression (.71). These
internal consistency estimates were consistent with the
estimates reported in the AQ manual for the standardiza-
tion sample. In addition, correlation between the AQ with
peer nominations for anger and hostility traits, and other
123
202
measures of anger established construct and criterion-
related validities.
The anger scale reflected the negative phenomenological
state of trait anger, whereas the physical, verbal, and
indirect aggression scales represented various ways that
aggression could be expressed toward people and objects.
Hostility differs from anger and aggression in that it was
classified as an attitude. Hostility was defined as negative
attitudes of resentment and suspiciousness that increased
the likelihood of an anger response (DiGiuseppe and Taf-
rate 2007). Physical and verbal aggression were readily
observable behaviors, whereas hostility and indirect
aggression were more covert in nature, and therefore, more
difficult to observe. For the purpose of our study, we
examined verbal, physical, and indirect aggression sub-
scales as separate dependent variables. Other researchers
have used subscales from the AQ to assess conceptually
independent constructs of aggression, anger, and hostility
(e.g., Ramı́rez and Andreu 2006).
Peer-Rated Measure
Students completed a Peer-Rated Measure (PRM) created
by the first author, which intended to measure anger, hos-
tility, and aggression. Participants were asked to read 10
statements about anger (e.g., He/she has trouble controlling
his/her temper.), hostility (e.g., He/she often seems bitter.),
and aggression (e.g., If provoked, he/she may hit someone.)
and decide whether each of the statements applied to other
participating peers. The 10 statements closely matched the
items of the AQ. Participants only rated peers of the same
gender because we thought that students would be better
informants of their same sex peers. To score the PRM, the
number of nominations each participant received for each
of the 10 items were summed and then divided by the
number of students that rated the target participant. The
alpha coefficient for this instrument was .85.
The three subscales on average correlated highly, indi-
cating that the scale may be measuring a single construct of
aggression rather than three unique measures of hostility,
aggression, and anger. Perhaps students used observable
aggressive behavior to assess a peer’s hostility and anger
because these two variables are not observable. Hostility (an
attitude) and anger (an emotion) are more internal and may
not be accurately assessed by peers; whereas, aggression, an
overt behavior, is easily detected. Therefore, we used peer
ratings as a fourth dependent variable, as a general measure
of aggression to supplement self-reports of aggression.
Procedure
Parental consent forms and letters explaining the study
were sent to 200 potential participants’ parents from four
123
Cogn Ther Res (2011) 35:199–208
grade levels (grades 9–12) of the social studies department
of a high school. Approximately 68% (n = 137) of the
students returned the signed form. Of 137 students with
parental permission, two students were absent due to illness
on the day that the questionnaires were group administered
in participants’ classrooms. Students who were present, but
did not have parental consent remained in the class and
were given independent work to complete by their teacher
while others students who provided written parental per-
mission (n = 135) completed a self-report measure of
irrational beliefs, a self-report measure of anger and
aggression, and a peer-rated measure intending to assess
anger, hostility, and aggression. The order of these scales
was counterbalanced.
Results
Zero-order correlations among all study variables appear in
Table 1. Measures of anger, aggression, and hostility cor-
related significantly. The correlations among the subscales
of the CASI were similar to the coefficients reported by
Bernard and Cronan (1999). In Bernard and Cronan (1999)’s
research, self-downing did not relate to both intolerance of
rules frustration and intolerance of work frustration.
Whereas, intolerance and of rules frustration and intolerance
of work frustration correlated with each other (r = .49). In
this study, demand for fairness failed to correlate with any
measures of anger, aggression, and hostility. Self-downing
related moderately to anger (r(135) = .25, P \ .01) but did
not relate to aggression measures. Intolerance of work
frustration moderately correlated with some measures of
aggression. Noteworthy is the high correlation of intolerance
of rules frustration with anger (r(135) = .40, P \ .01) and
with aggression measures, ranging from .29 to .45. This
indicated that adolescents who hold irrational beliefs of
intolerance of frustration with rules also have higher scores
on measures of anger and aggression.
On the PRM, correlations with AQ scales of physical
aggression, verbal aggression, indirect aggression, and
anger were significant, whereas correlation with AQ hos-
tility scale was not. Interestingly, the PRM scale correlated
most highly with the physical aggression scale of the AQ.
This finding reflects the difficulty students may have in
rating anger, an affect, as opposed to physical aggression,
an overt behavior of their peers. They may have inferred
anger based on the absence or presence of physical and
verbal aggression.
Descriptive Statistics
Total sample means and standard deviations for all scales
appear in Table 2. The means and standard deviations of
Cogn Ther Res (2011) 35:199–208 203

Table 1 Zero-order correlations among study variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. PA – 46** .56** .47** .26** .01 .45** .21* .07 .49**

2. VA – .38** .49** .25** -.09 .29** .07 -.01 .41**
3. IND – .47** .34** .09 .43** .28** .08 .29**
4. ANG – .47** .25** .39** .12 .11 .21*
5. HOS – .49** .34** .27** .25 .07
6. SD – .22** .14 .15 -.02
7. INR – .47** .07 .22**
8. INW – .31** .03
9. DF – .05
10. PRM –
PA physical aggression, VA verbal aggression, IND indirect aggression, ANG anger, HOS hostility, SD self-downing, INR intolerance of
frustrating rules, INW intolerance of work frustration, DF demands for fairness, PRM peer-rated measure
* P \ .05; ** P \ .01

Table 2 Total sample means and standard deviations skewed with 21.5% of the students not receiving any peer
nominations for aggression, hostility, and anger. To reduce
Scale Mean SD
the extreme skewness and kurtosis, square root transfor-
Aggression questionnaire (AQ) mations were applied to PRM. All continuous variables
Physical aggression 14.71 6.53 were centered when examined as independent and moder-
Verbal aggression 13.55 3.94 ator variables.
Indirect aggression 13.41 3.75 We first tested whether anger, hostility, and irrational
Hostility 17.75 5.52 beliefs influenced each other and the probability of dif-
Anger 15.04 5.09 ferent types of aggression. Hierarchical regression was
Child and adolescent scale of irrationality (CASI) employed with gender in the first step and anger, hostility,
Self-downing 18.11 6.00 and total IB in the second step for each of the three
Intolerance of frustrating rules 15.98 5.24 aggression measures. Table 3 displays the standardized
Intolerance of work frustration 26.11 5.43 regression coefficients (b), the semipartial correlations (sr),
Demands for fairness 18.63 3.25 t-tests, adjusted R2 and R2 change for all predictors in
Peer-rated measure (PRM) 0.65 0.86 predicting different types of aggression.
In predicting physical aggression, the adjusted R2 for
Possible raw score ranges for each scale of the Aggression Ques-
tionnaire and Child and Adolescent Scale of Irrationality are as fol-
gender was .07 (P \ .01), indicating that males were more
lows: Physical Aggression (8–40); Verbal Aggression (5–25); Indirect likely to report physical aggression. Adding anger, hostil-
Aggression (6–30); Hostility (8–40); Anger (7–35); Self-Downing ity, and total IB significantly improved the fit of the model,
(8–40); Intolerance of Rules Frustration (7–35); Intolerance of Work DR2 = .26, P \ .01. The adjusted R2 value of .31 in the
Frustration (8–40); and Demands for Fairness (5–25)
second step indicated that gender (b = -.31, P \ .01),
anger (b = .44, P \ .01), and irrational beliefs (b = .18,
the AQ were comparable to the values reported in other P = .04) collectively explained more than one-third of the
school-based pre-adolescent and adolescent samples variability of physical aggression. Hostility failed to con-
and also with the male secondary vocational students tribute to the explanation of the variance of physical
(Santisteban and Alvarado 2009), and not surprisingly, the aggression, b = -.02, P = .82.
aggression scores were significantly lower than the Gender failed to predict both verbal aggression (b =
aggression scores of the outpatient and inpatient forensic -.08, P = .34) and indirect aggression (b = -.02,
psychiatric institutions (Hornsveld et al. 2009). P = .81). After the addition of anger, hostility, and irra-
tional beliefs in the second step, the R2 for verbal aggres-
Regression Analyses sion improved by .26 (P \ .01) and .27 (P \ .01) for
indirect aggression, respectively. In the prediction of verbal
Before conducting the analysis, we examined violation of aggression, anger (b = .50, P \ .01) was statistically sig-
assumptions of regression. We found no multivariate out- nificant predictor over and above the effects of gender
liers using Mahalanobis distance. PRM was positively (b = -.11, P = .16), the total IB (b = -.09, P = .31),

123
204 Cogn Ther Res (2011) 35:199–208

Table 3 Summary of linear regression analyses predicting aggression

Steps and predictor Physical aggression Verbal aggression Indirect aggression
variables
b sr t-test b sr t-test b sr t-test

Step 1
Gender -.26** -.26 -3.14 -.08 -.08 -.96 -.02 -.02 -.25
Step 2
Gender -.31** -.31 -4.29 -.11 -.11 -1.42 -.07 -.07 -.97
Anger .44** .38 5.31 .50** .44 5.79 .38** .33 4.36
Hostility -.02 -.02 -.23 .07 .05 .70 .06 .05 .66
Total IB .18* .15 2.11 -.09 -.08 -1.02 .19* .16 2.14
IB = Irrational beliefs; Physical Aggression: Adj R2 = .07, P \ .01 for step 1; DR2 = .26, P \ .01 for step 2. Verbal Aggression: Adj R2 = .00,
P = .34 for step 1; DR2 = .26, P \ .01 for step 2. Indirect Aggression: Adj R2 = -.01, P = .81 for step 1; DR2 = .27, P \ .01 for step 2
* P \ .05; ** P \ .01

and hostility (b = .07, P = .49). In the prediction of
indirect aggression, anger (b = .38, P \ .01) and irrational
beliefs (b = .19, P = .04) and not hostility (b = .06,
P = .51) were a potent influence.
In summary, gender differences were not detected in
predicting different types of aggression except for physical
aggression. The combination of the overall irrational
beliefs and anger better explained the variance in physical
aggression and indirect aggression, and anger alone pre-
dicted verbal aggression. To explore the role of specific
irrational beliefs on aggression, we conducted a series of
hierarchical regression with gender, anger, and specific
IBs (i.e., self-downing, intolerance of rules frustration,
intolerance of work, and demand for fairness) as predictors
in the model. Hostility was excluded from the models
because it did not contribute to the understanding of
aggression. Because gender differences were noted in both
intolerance of rules frustration and self-downing, the
interaction of gender and these cognitions as a moderator
were added in the last step of the regression analyses. The
interaction of gender with intolerance of rules frustration
was thought to predict physical aggression and indirect
aggression, and the interaction of gender with self-down-
ing was expected to predict verbal aggression. We also
added the interaction of gender and anger in all models to
assess whether anger differentially affects aggression for
males and females.
These analyses indicated that the effect of the overall
total irrational beliefs on aggressive behaviors was carried
by the function of specific irrational beliefs. Gender
(b = -.26, P \ .01), anger (b = .49, P \ .01), and intol-
erance of rules frustration (b = .28, P \ .01) predicted
physical aggression beyond the effects of other IBs.
Although gender did not influence indirect aggression, the
combination of anger (b = .45, P \ .01) and intolerance of
rules frustration (b = .25, P = .05) predicted indirect
aggression. For verbal aggression, only anger (b = .61,
P \ .01) and not irrational beliefs was an important
predictor.
Gender did not interact with irrational beliefs nor did it
interact with anger in predicting aggression. The main
effects indicated that the prediction of aggression was
improved with increased anger and greater endorsement of
irrationals beliefs (intolerance of rules frustration for
physical and indirect aggression); however, the function of
irrational beliefs and anger did not affect aggression dif-
ferently for males and females.
Peer Ratings of Aggression
The peer ratings of aggression corroborated the results of
the self-report measures. We repeated the hierarchical
regression model summarized in Table 4 using PRM as a
dependent variable. In the first step, gender significantly
predicted PRM (b = -.28, P \ .01), indicating that males
were more likely to be voted by peers to be more aggres-
sive. When we entered anger, hostility, and the total IB in
the second step, the fit of the model improved with an R2
change of .06, P = .05. When all three variables were
compared to each other, only gender (b = -.30, P \ .01)
and anger (b = .20, P = .04) were significant predictors of
PRM.
In the follow-up analysis, we entered gender, anger, and
specific IBs (i.e., self-downing, intolerance of rules frus-
tration, intolerance of work, and demand for fairness) in the
first step and gender 9 anger in the second step to predict
peer rated aggression. Hostility and gender 9 irrational
belief were excluded from this model. Gender significantly
predicted PRM (b = -.28, P \ .01), indicating that males
were more likely to be voted by peers to be aggressive.
Anger (b = .19, P = .10) and specific irrational beliefs
(i.e., intolerance of frustrating rules: b = .17, P = .10;
intolerance of work frustration: b = -.05, P = .65;
demands for fairness: b = .01, P = .90; self-downing:

123
Cogn Ther Res (2011) 35:199–208 205

Table 4 Summary of linear regression analyses predicting aggression

Steps and predictor variables Physical aggression Verbal aggression Indirect aggression
b sr t-test b sr t-test b sr t-test

Step 1
Gender -.26** -.25 -3.65 -.06 -.06 -.76 -.03 -.03 -.34
Anger .49** .31 4.44 .61** .39 5.29 .45** .28 3.82
INW .05 .04 .53 -.01 -.01 -.08 .15 .12 1.63
DF .04 .04 .53 -.02 -.03 -.41 -.01 -.01 -.14
SD -.10 -.09 -1.30 -.24 -.13 -1.76 -.06 -.06 -.77
INR .28* .17 2.43 .16 .13 1.73 .25* .15 2.00
Step 2
Gender 9 INR .02 .01 .14 – – – -.01 -.01 -.12
Gender 9 SD – – – .04 .02 .28 – – –
Gender 9 Anger -.14 -.08 -1.21 -.17 -.10 -1.41 -.10 -.06 -76
SD = Self-downing; INR = Intolerance of frustrating rules; INW = Intolerance of work frustration; DF = Demands for fairness. Physical
aggression: Adj R2 = .36, P \ .01 for step 1; DR2 = .01, P = .45 for step 2. Verbal Aggression: Adj R2 = .28, P \ .01 for step 1; DR2 = .01,
P = .37 for step 2. Indirect Aggression: Adj R2 = .28, P \ .01 for step 1; DR2 = .00, P = .68 for step 2
* P \ .05; ** P \ .01

b = .02, P = .86) and anger (b = .20, P = .13) did not
predict peer aggression ratings. In addition, gen-
der 9 anger was not significant.
Discussion
This study extended our knowledge of cognition, anger,
and aggression in adolescents by investigating the role of
irrational beliefs, anger, and hostility on self-reported
aggression and peer aggression ratings.
Anger and irrational beliefs significantly predicted self-
reported physical and indirect aggression, and anger alone
predicted verbal aggression. Gender alone predicted the
aggregate measure of aggression rated by peers, indicating
that boys are viewed as more aggressive by their peers.
These findings are important in the conceptualization of the
role of cognitions and emotions in aggression. The first
finding supports REBT theory in that both cognition and
emotion were important in predicting the behavior
response of physical and indirect aggression. The second
finding suggests that anger alone may be an important
contributor to verbal aggression. However, these findings
may be oversimplified because an aggregate of the total IB
was used to test the model, which does not account for the
unique contribution of specific irrational beliefs. When we
further classified the irrational beliefs into specific domains
of self-downing, intolerance of frustrating rules, intoler-
ance of work frustration, and demands for fairness, only
intolerance of frustrating rule significantly contributed to
the explanation of physical and indirect aggression. This
finding suggests that different cognitive processes are
involved in aggressive behavior responses. Anger appears
to be the necessary influential factor for aggression in
general, which supports the notion that highly angry indi-
viduals have greater tendencies to engage in antagonistic
and less effective behavior (Deffenbacher et al. 1986).
Furthermore, cognitive evaluation of the situations or
irrational beliefs of the activating events differently affect
aggression. Specifically, greater intolerance of rules frus-
tration and increased anger predicted physical aggression
and indirect aggression, while increased anger predicted
verbal aggression.
Hostility failed to explain aggression in all types of
aggression including peer rated aggression. Hostility, an
attitude, is related to cognitive and affective facet of anger,
but not to behavioral ones like aggression (Ramı́rez and
Andreu 2006).
An irrational belief of intolerance of rules frustration
predicted self-report anger, all forms of self-report
aggression, and the PRM. This finding supports REBT
theory and suggests that adolescents with a propensity for
such thoughts might experience anger and/or demonstrate
aggressive behavior in response to limit setting. This result
also indicates that anger alone is not the best predictor of
physical aggression but the combination with the irrational
belief of intolerance of rules frustration is a better
predictor.
Gender Differences
Gender differences emerged in the data. Namely, males
were more likely than females to report physical aggres-
sion, and peers voted males as more aggressive. This

123
206
finding supports the results from other study reports that
adolescent boys have higher levels of aggression (Archer
et al. 1988; Bongers et al. 2004; Hyde 2005; Martino et al.
2008). Boys are more likely to be physically aggressive and
girls tend to substitute indirect (non-confrontational) forms
of aggression than more direct ones.
Because of this gender difference, we hypothesized that
the pathway leading to aggression may be different for
boys and girls. The moderator analysis revealed that boys
have greater physical aggression, but both boys and girls
showed similar trend in that their physical aggression
increased as their anger and intolerance of rules frustration
increased. The level of anger did not differ for boys and
girls, suggesting that the findings are equally applicable to
both sexes (Zwemer and Deffenbacher 1984).
Treatment Implications
A standard multiple regression analyses identified a unique
contribution of an irrational belief while controlling for
other irrational beliefs in predicting aggression. It is not
surprising that intolerance of rules frustration was endorsed
by adolescents given how rules are perceived to be limiting
the general sense of independence in this developmental
period. As adolescents negotiate the terms of indepen-
dence, they may grow resentful or frustrated by rules
imposed on them by the structured school settings, espe-
cially when they interpret school rules as inhibiting them
from achieving their social goals. However, it is of concern
when this specific irrational belief leads to physical or
indirect aggression in angry adolescents. Therefore, this
irrational belief may be an appropriate clinical target.
Based on REBT theory, modifying specific irrational
beliefs can decrease aggression. Perhaps clinicians should
pay particular attention to low frustration tolerance of rules
when working with angry adolescents.
REBT and other treatments aimed at reducing irrational
beliefs and reinforcing rational beliefs could be particularly
effective for child and adolescent anger and aggression.
Consistent with this idea, Brestan and Eyberg (1998), in
their review of 82 outcome studies of treatment for child
and adolescent conduct problems, classified REBT as a
‘‘probably efficacious’’ treatment based on the Chambless
et al. (1996)’ criteria for well-established treatments and
probably efficacious treatments. However, the classifica-
tion was based on the results of one study (c.f., Block
1978), indicating that future treatment studies are needed to
show that treatments targeted at irrational beliefs can
reduce both anger and aggression. It remains possible that
REBT could add to the effectiveness of other well-estab-
lished researched treatments such as parent training pro-
grams and social problem-solving interventions (Brestan
and Eyberg 1998).
123
Cogn Ther Res (2011) 35:199–208
Limitations
A limitation of this study is the use of a cross-sectional
design and therefore does not allow for causal and temporal
sequence of variables. Conclusive statements cannot be
drawn about whether anger and irrational beliefs occurred
before, after, or at the same time as aggression. Concep-
tually and theoretically, we can assume that both anger and
irrational beliefs preceded aggression; however, the rela-
tion among these variables may be reciprocal and not
unidirectional. It may be that in some instances anger
increases the likelihood of aggression, whereas at other
times, it does not. This is consistent with some theorists’
(e.g., Lazarus 1991; Skinner 1964) claim that differ from
Ellis’ ABC model of emotion and behavior. These theorists
believe that thoughts and emotions arise in different
sequences (which is congruent with the ABC model) and
may not cause behavior. Ellis always contended that human
thinking, emotion, and behavior are not disparate processes
but are highly interrelated and bidirectional (Ellis 1958).
Perhaps under some circumstances cognition precedes
emotion and behavior, whereas at other times, emotional
arousal is experienced first, followed by some form of
irrational thinking and behavioral response. To test the
temporal order that anger and irrational beliefs precede
aggressive behavior, experimental and prospective designs
should be employed.
Limitations of the measure also warrant attention. The
peer rating measure designed to assess aggression, hos-
tility and anger separately was not sensitive enough to
detect the three different constructs. However, an advan-
tage of using the PRM is that this measure along with the
self-reported measure of aggression strengthened the
reported findings. The fact that PRM highly correlated
with self-report aggression further provides evidence for
internal validity. The PRM also provides external validity
by assessing peer ratings, which is reflective of how high
school adolescents aggress in their actual social micro-
cosm. Future studies should also use the multi-method to
assess these constructs.
Approximately 68% of the students provided with con-
sent forms returned written parental consent and provided
assent to participate in the study. Attrition rate of 32% may
be explained by the requirement to obtain active parental
consent. Obtaining active parental concern in survey
research studies is known to decrease the participation rates
(Esbensen et al. 1999). One possible problem of using
active parental consent form is that high-risk students may
be underrepresented, and therefore, at-risk and high-risk
students who are more likely to engage in problematic
behaviors are not sampled. While relatively elevated
attrition rate may have confounded the outcome, we were
still able to find that anger, and irrational beliefs affect
Cogn Ther Res (2011) 35:199–208
aggression in regular education, high school aged
adolescents.
The presence of emotional content of the aggression
items of the AQ confounds the measurement of aggression.
Therefore, the relationship between the anger and aggres-
sion variables may have been inflated. In addition, the
aggression scales represent anger expression given that
some of the items reflect behaviors expressed when angry
(e.g., I have been so mad that I have broken things.).
Because of these issues, the associations found among
irrational beliefs, anger, hostility, and aggression may be
due to shared variance between anger and aggression.
Items assessing hostility may not provide unique contri-
bution to the explanation of aggression because this atti-
tudinal construct assesses both cognition and emotion,
which may already have been accounted for by anger and
IB subscales. To avoid inflated correlations between anger
and aggression, investigators should make use of measures
of aggression that do not include emotional content.
Despite these limitations, this study examined important
emotional, behavioral, and cognitive factors related to
adolescent aggression, a timely and important research
area. In addition, it expanded our understanding of com-
peting theories and provided support for Ellis’ (REBT)
theories of aggression and Berkowitz’s Neoassocianistic
Model. Specifically, it supports the theory that irrational
beliefs and emotion (anger) predict aggression. This may
provide clinicians with practical guidance in the treatment
of anger and aggression in adolescent populations.
References
Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings:
A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8, 291–
322.
Archer, J., Pearson, N. A., & Westeman, K. E. (1988). Aggressive
behavior of children aged 6–11: Gender differences and their
magnitude. British Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 371–384.
Averill, J. R. (1983). Studies on anger and aggression: Implications
for theories of emotion. American Psychologist, 38, 1145–1160.
Azoulay, D. (2000). Cognitive distortions in the experience and
expression of anger (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio Adler School of
Professional Psychology, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 60, 4200B.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Beck, A. T. (1999). Prisoners of hate: The cognitive basis of anger,
hostility, and violence. New York: Guilford Press.
Berkowitz, L. (1994). Towards a general theory of anger and
emotional aggression: Implications of the cognitive neoassocia-
tionistic perspective for the analysis of anger and other emotions.
In R. S. Weyer & T. K. Scull (Eds.), Perspective on anger and
emotion (Vol. 6, pp. 1–46). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bernard, M. E., & Cronan, F. (1999). The child and adolescent scale
of irrationality: Validation data and mental health correlates.
Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 13, 121–132.
207
Block, J. (1978). Effects of a rational-emotive mental health program
on poorly achieving disruptive high school students. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 25, 61–65.
Boldizar, J. P., Perry, D. G., & Perry, L. C. (1989). Outcome values
and aggression. Child Development, 60, 571–579.
Bongers, I. L., Koot, H. M., van der Ende, J., & Verhulst, F. C.
(2004). Developmental trajectories of externalizing behaviors in
childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 75, 1523–1537.
Brestan, E. V., & Eyberg, S. M. (1998). Effective psychosocial
treatments of conduct-disordered children and adolescents:
29 years, 82 studies, and 5, 272 kids. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 27, 180–189.
Buss, A. H., & Warren, W. L. (2000). Manual: Aggression
questionnaire. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological
Services.
Chambless, D. L., Sanderson, W. C., Shoham, V., Bennett Johnson,
S., Pope, K. S., Cristoph, P., et al. (1996). An update on
empirically validated therapies. The Clinical Psychologist, 49,
5–18.
Cornell, D. G., & Loper, A. B. (1998). Assessment of violence and
other high-risk behaviors with a school survey. School Psychol-
ogy Review, 27, 317–330.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1989). Children’s perceptions of peer
entry and conflict situations: Social strategies, goals, and
outcome expectations. In B. Schneider, J. Nadel, G. Attili, &
R. Weissberg (Eds.), Social competence in developmental
perspective (pp. 396–399). New York: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformation of
social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social
adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101.
Crick, N. R., & Ladd, G. W. (1993). Children’s perceptions of their
peers’ experiences: Attributions, loneliness, social anxiety, and
social avoidance. Developmental Psychology, 29, 244–254.
Dadds, M. R., Sanders, M. R., Morrison, M., & Rebgetz, M. (1992).
Childhood depression and conduct disorder: II. An analysis of
family interaction patterns in the home. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 101, 505–513.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Demm, P. M., & Brandon, A. D. (1986). High
general anger: Correlates and treatment. Behaviour Research
and Therapy, 24, 481–489.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., Lynch, R. S., & Morris, C. D.
(1996). The expression of anger and its consequences. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 34, 575–590.
DiGiuseppe, R., & Froh, J. J. (2002). What cognitions predict state
anger? Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior
Therapy, 20, 133–150.
DiGiuseppe, R., & Tafrate, R. C. (2004). Anger disorders scale:
Manual. Toronto, ON: Multi Health Systems.
DiGiuseppe, R., & Tafrate, R. C. (2007). Understanding anger
disorders. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dodge, K. A. (1980). Social cognition and children’s aggressive
behavior. Child Development, 51, 162–170.
Dodge, K. A., Price, J. M., Bachorowski, J., & Newman, J. P. (1990).
Hostile attributional biases in severely aggressive adolescents.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 385–392.
Dodge, K. A., & Somberg, D. R. (1987). Hostile attributional biases
among aggressive boys are exacerbated under conditions of
threats to the self. Child Development, 58, 213–224.
Eckhardt, C. I., Barbour, K. A., & Davison, G. C. (1998). Articulated
thoughts of maritally violent and nonviolent men during anger
arousal. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66,
259–269.
Ellis, A. (1958). Rational psychotherapy. Journal of General
Psychology, 59, 35–49. Reprinted: New York: Albert Ellis
Institute.
123
208
Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. New York:
Lyle Stuart.
Ellis, A. (1977). Anger: How to live with and without it. New York:
Carol Publishing Group.
Ellis, A. (2003). Anger: How to live with and without it. New York:
Citadel.
Esbensen, F., Miller, M. H., Taylor, T., He, N., & Freng, A. (1999).
Differential attrition rates and active parental consent. Evalua-
tion Review, 23, 316–335.
Gabel, S., & Shindledecker, R. (1991). Aggressive behavior in youth:
Characteristics, outcome, and psychiatric diagnoses. Journal of
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30,
982–988.
Gehlbach, L.N. (2001). The relation between emotional state, social
cognition, and aggression in boys. (Doctoral dissertation,
Southern Illinois University of Carbondale, 2001). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 61, 4403B.
Hazaleus, S. L., & Deffenbacher, J. L. (1985). Irrational beliefs and
anger arousal. Journal of College Student Personnel, 26, 47–52.
Hornsveld, R. H. D., Muris, P., Kraaimaat, F. W., & Meester, C.
(2009). Psychometric properties of the aggression questionnaire
in Dutch violent forensic psychiatric patients and secondary
vocational students. Assessment, 16, 181–192.
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American
Psychologist, 60, 581–592.
Joffe, R. D., Dobson, K. S., Fine, S., Marriage, K., & Haley, G.
(1990). Social problem-solving in depressed, conduct-disor-
dered, and normal adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 18, 565–575.
Kassinove, H., & Sukhodolsky, D. G. (1995). Anger disorders: Basic
science and practice issues. In H. Kassinove (Ed.), Anger
disorders: Definition, diagnosis, and treatment (pp. 1–26).
Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Keltikangas-Jorvinen, L., & Kangas, P. (1988). Problem-solving
strategies in aggressive and nonaggressive children. Aggressive
Behavior, 14, 255–264.
Kupersmidt, J. B., & Coie, J. D. (1990). Preadolescent peer status,
aggression, and school adjustment as predictors of externalizing
problems in adolescence. Child Development, 61, 1350–1362.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. London: Oxford
University Press.
Lochman, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). Social-cognitive processes of
severely violent, moderately aggressive, and nonaggressive boys.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 366–374.
Lowery, S. E. (1990). Irrational beliefs in conduct-disordered,
anxiety/mood disordered and educational groups of children:
Validation of the Common Beliefs Survey – Revised for
Children. (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1989).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 1030B.
Martino, S. C., Ellickson, P. L., Klein, D. J., McCaffrey, D., &
Orlando Edelen, M. (2008). Multiple trajectories of physical
aggression among adolescent boys and girls. Aggressive Behav-
ior, 34, 61–75.
123
Cogn Ther Res (2011) 35:199–208
Matthys, W., Cuperus, J. M., & Van Engeland, H. (1999). Deficient
social problem-solving in boys with ODD/CD, with ADHD, and
with both disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 311–321.
Moss, H. B., & Kirisci, L. (1995). Aggressivity in adolescent alcohol
abusers: Relationship with conduct disorder. Alcoholism, Clin-
ical and Experimental Research, 19, 642–646.
Pope, A. W., & Bierman, K. L. (1999). Predicting adolescent peer
problems and antisocial activities: The relative roles of aggres-
sion and dysregulation. Developmental Psychology, 35, 335–
346.
Ramı́rez, J. M., & Andreu, J. M. (2006). Aggression, and some related
psychological constructs (anger, hostility, and impulsivity).
Some comments from a research project. Neuroscience and
Biobehavioral Reviews, 30, 276–291.
Richard, B. A., & Dodge, K. A. (1982). Social maladjustment and
problem solving in school-aged children. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 50, 226–233.
Salzinger, K. (1995). A behavior-analytic view of anger and
aggression. In H. Kassinove (Ed.), Anger disorders: Definition,
diagnosis, and treatment (pp. 69–79). Philadelphia: Taylor &
Francis.
Santisteban, C., & Alvarado, J. M. (2009). The aggression question-
naire for Spanish preadolescents and adolescents AQ-PA. The
Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12, 320–326.
Scherer, K. R., & Wallbott, H. G. (1994). Evidence for universality
and cultural variation of differential emotion response pattern-
ing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 310–328.
Singer, M. I., & Flannery, D. J. (2000). The relationship between
children’s threats of violence and violent behaviors. Archives of
Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 154, 785–790.
Skinner, B. F. (1964). Behaviorism as a philosophy of psychology. In
T. W. Wann (Ed.), Behaviorism and Phenomenology. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Slaby, R. G., & Guerra, N. G. (1988). Cognitive mediators of
aggression in adolescent offenders: 1. Assessment. Developmen-
tal Psychology, 24, 580–588.
Spielberger, C. D. (1999). Manual for the state-trait anger expression
inventory-2. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Stein, D., Apter, A., Ratzoni, G., Har-Even, D., & Avidan, G. (1998).
Association between multiple suicide attempts and negative
affects in adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 488–494.
Steinberg, M. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Attributional bias in
aggressive adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 1, 312–321.
Webster-Stratton, C., & Lindsay, D. W. (1999). Social competence
and conduct problems in young children: Issues in assessment.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 25–43.
Zwemer, W. A., & Deffenbacher, J. L. (1984). Irrational beliefs,
anger and anxiety. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 391–
393.
Copyright of Cognitive Therapy & Research is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

View publication stats