angry thoughts and daily emotion logs: validity of the angry cognitions scale
TRANSCRIPT
ORI GIN AL ARTICLE
Angry Thoughts and Daily Emotion Logs: Validityof the Angry Cognitions Scale
Ryan C. Martin • Lauren E. Vieaux
Published online: 28 September 2013
� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract The Angry Cognitions Scale (ACS; Martin and Dahlen in J Ration Emot
Cogn Behav Therapy 25:155–173, 2007) was designed to measure six cognitive
processes related to anger: misattributing causation, overgeneralizing, catastro-
phizing, demandingness, inflammatory labeling, and adaptive processes. Pre-
liminary evidence on the reliability of the ACS has been positive, demonstrating
that the ACS is correlated with the experience and expression of anger, anger
consequences, hostile thoughts, and responses to provocation (Martin and Dahlen in
J Ration Emot Cogn Behav Therapy 25:155–173, 2007; J Ration Emot Cogn Behav
Therapy, 29:65–76, 2011). This previous research, however, has suffered from
limitations associated with demand characteristics and the reliance on retrospective
data. The current study sought to address these limitations by using daily emotion
logs. Results showed that the ACS predicted the daily experience of anger and anger
related consequences, contributing to the literature on the ACS as a valuable
measure of anger-related cognitions.
Keywords Anger � Cognition � Assessment � Emotion noted
Introduction
Though anger is a commonly experienced emotion, it is well known that it can have
highly negative repercussions when experienced too often or when expressed in
maladaptive ways. In fact, anger is known to be associated with a number of
R. C. Martin (&)
Departments of Human Development and Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Mary
Ann Cofrin Hall C318, 2420 Nicolet Dr., Green Bay, WI 54311-7001, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
L. E. Vieaux
Psychology Department, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Green Bay, WI, USA
123
J Rat-Emo Cognitive-Behav Ther (2013) 31:219–230
DOI 10.1007/s10942-013-0171-2
negative correlates, such as health problems, other emotional problems like
depression and anxiety, occupational dysfunction, a decrease in social support, and
aggression (Bruehl et al. 2012; Dahlen and Martin 2005; Deffenbacher 1992; Eiden
et al. 2012; Helmers et al. 1994; Sirois and Burg 2003). Consequently, dysfunctional
anger is a problem frequently dealt with in therapy.
Over the last 10 years, the field has seen a growing body of literature on the value
of cognitive-behavioral therapy for maladaptive anger (Deffenbacher 2006;
DiGiuseppe and Tafrate 2007; Loehman et al. 2012; Sukhodolsky and Scahill
2012). Interestingly, however, until recently, there have been few measures of
anger-related cognitions to assist researchers and clinicians in better understanding
the thoughts commonly experienced by people when angry. Those measures of
anger-related cognitions that do exist tend to focus on some of the thoughts that
people have once they are angry. For instance, the Anger Rumination Scale
(Sukhodolsky et al. 2001) measures the tendency to ruminate about an event after it
has occurred. Likewise, the newly developed Anger Regulation and Expression
Scales (DiGiuseppe and Tafrate 2011) measure cognitive styles like bitterness and
suspiciousness. Finally, the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (Snyder et al. 1997)
measures the types of antagonistic thoughts people have when angry. None of these
instruments measure the primary types of cognitive errors outlined in the cognitive
literature on the treatment of problematic anger (e.g., Beck 1999; Deffenbacher
1996; Dryden 1990; Ellis 1977). Such a measure would assist in understanding the
relationship between the thoughts, behaviors, and emotions of angry people.
The Angry Cognitions Scale (ACS; Martin and Dahlen 2007) was developed to
measure five types of cognitive processes described in the cognitive literature on the
treatment of anger problems (e.g., Beck 1999; Deffenbacher 1996; Dryden 1990;
Ellis 1977): (1) overgeneralizing, (2) inflammatory labeling, (3) demandingness, (4)
catastrophic evaluation, and (5) misattributing causation. These five cognitive
processes have been demonstrated in multiple studies to be important in predicting
the experience and expression of anger in adults (e.g., Eckhardt and Jamison 2002;
Eckhardt and Kassivove 1998; Martin and Dahlen 2011; Martin and Dahlen 2007;
Martin and Dahlen 2004; Mizes et al. 1990; Tafrate et al. 2002). However, until the
development of the ACS, limited means of assessing anger-related cognitive
processes has been a significant hurdle to research and clinical work.
Two previous studies by Martin and Dahlen (2007, 2011) provided preliminary
evidence of support for the construct validity of the ACS. In the first (2007), they found
that all five cognitive processes measured by the ACS were related to the experience
and expression of anger, the experience of negative anger-related consequences, and
the experience of hostile thoughts. Likewise, the adaptive processes subscale of the
ACS was related to anger control, positive thoughts, and negatively correlated with the
experience and maladaptive expression of anger. These findings were replicated in the
second study (2011) which also tested the temporal stability of the ACS and found that
the ACS predicted anger and hostile thoughts in response to a provocation.
These initial findings have been promising and support the ACS as a valid
measure of anger-related cognitive processes. However, these initial studies have
not been without limitations. First, the research on the ACS has relied largely on
retrospective data with regard to negative anger-related consequences. Specifically,
220 R. C. Martin, L. E. Vieaux
123
the Anger Consequences Questionnaire (Deffenbacher et al. 1996), which asks
participants how many times they have experienced certain negative consequences
in the last month as a result of their anger (e.g., negative emotions, physical fights),
was used in both studies. Though there is a significant literature base supporting the
Anger Consequences Questionnaire as a valid measure of anger consequences
(Dahlen and Martin 2006; Deffenbacher et al. 1996), there is also reason to believe
that retrospective data, particularly for such a long period of time as 1 month, is less
accurate than other means when it comes to behavioral checklists. For instance,
participants are less likely to be able to give an accurate count of how many times
they may have engaged in a particular behavior (e.g., yelled at someone) in the last
month than if they were asked about the last day.
Likewise, early research on the ACS may have suffered from problems related to
demand characteristics. In both of the previous ACS projects, participants were
likely able to surmise early on in the data collection that the focus of the study was
on anger as the instructions and the items for several of the questionnaires, including
the ACS, contain references to anger. Previous research on demand characteristics
has shown that when participants are aware of the purpose of a study, they respond
in ways that are consistent with that purpose (Nichols and Maner 2008).
The current study seeks to address these two limitations by exploring the value of the
ACS in predicting the experience and expression of anger through the use of daily
emotion logs. By using daily emotion logs, it was possible to better disguise the purpose
of the study as being about emotion in general, rather than about anger specifically, and
to limit the potential problems of retrospective data by asking participants about anger
consequences at the end of each day rather than the end of each month.
Method
Participants
One hundred and eighty-one (158 female, 23 male) participants were recruited from
undergraduate psychology and human development courses (Mdn age = 19) at a
public school in the Midwest. Students received course credit for their participation.
Instruments
Angry Thoughts
Anger-related cognitive processes were measured using the 54-item Angry
Cognitions Scale (ACS; Martin and Dahlen 2007). The ACS has six, nine-item,
subscales: misattributing causation (MC; attributing the cause of an event to the
wrong source), overgeneralizing (OV; using broad language like ‘‘always’’ or
‘‘never’’ in your interpretation of events), inflammatory labeling (IL; labeling others
in highly derogatory or offensive ways), demandingness (DE; asserting your own
needs as more important than the needs of others), catastrophic evaluating (CE;
elevating the degree to which an event is negative), and adaptive processes (AP;
Angry Cognitions Scale 221
123
those thoughts that are associated with anger reduction). Scores for each subscale
range from 9 to 45. Higher scores indicate greater endorsement of the thought type.
A total maladaptive processes score (TM) can be created by combining the five
maladaptive thought types. The total maladaptive processes score ranges from 45 to
225. The ACS has demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (a[ .70) and
6-week, test–retest, reliability (r [ .60; Martin and Dahlen 2011). Subscales are
correlated with trait anger, outward anger expression, many adverse consequences
of anger, and angry response to provocation (Martin and Dahlen 2007, 2011).
Anger Experience and Expression
The State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 (STAXI-2; Spielberger 1999) was
used to measure the experience and expression of anger. The STAXI-2 has six
subscales. First, the 10-item trait anger scale (T-Ang) was used to measure
participants’ tendency to experience anger. Next, the anger expression and control
scales were used. Anger expression-out (AX-O) measures the outward expression of
anger. Anger expression-in (AX-I) reflects the tendency to turn anger inwards by
suppressing anger. The two anger control scales, anger control-out (AC-O) and
anger control-in (AC-I), reflect different strategies for controlling anger. AC-O
reflects controlling anger by preventing the expression and AC-I reflects the use of
strategies like deep breathing to calm down. The sixth subscale, the state anger
scale, was not used in this study. The STAXI-2 uses Likert-type items with higher
scores indicating greater experience. The validity of the STAXI-2 has been
established through correlations with various measures of anger and hostility
(Deffenbacher 1992; Spielberger 1999).
Daily Emotion Log
The daily emotion log consisted of 24 items, to be completed at the end of each day.
It had three parts. First, four mood states (i.e., happy, sad, angry, fearful) were
measured using a brief version of Izard’s (1972) Differential Emotions Scale.
Participants were presented with one 5-inch line for each mood state. The lines were
labeled ‘‘not at all’’ on one end, ‘‘moderately’’ in the middle, and ‘‘very much’’ at
the other end and were marked at 1-inch intervals with 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100.
Participants were instructed to mark the line at the point indicating the amount of
the emotion they felt that day.
Second, participants were asked to describe the most emotional situation they had
experienced that day, the most prominent emotion they experienced during that
situation, and to rate how emotional they had been during that experience on a scale
from 0 (‘‘very little’’) to 100 (‘‘as much as could be’’).
Finally, participants were provided with a 17-item checklist of experiences they
might have had that day (e.g., used a substance, drove dangerously). Several of
these items were taken from the Anger Consequences Questionnaire (ACQ;
Deffenbacher et al. 1996) and reflect the six consequence subscales found in Dahlen
and Martin’s (2006) revision of the ACS: Negative emotions, aggression, drug use,
self-harm, risky driving, and damaged friendships. It included other items, however,
222 R. C. Martin, L. E. Vieaux
123
to distract participants from the focus on anger (e.g., cried out of happiness, laughed
out of joy). Although the ACQ has not been used in this format (i.e., as a daily
emotion log), it has demonstrated impressive validity as a measure of anger
consequences through its relationships with measures of trait anger and anger
expression (Dahlen and Martin 2006).
Procedures
Participants signed up online through a research management system to participate
in this study and received credit in their introductory psychology or human
development course for their participation. Participants were emailed by a
researcher 6 days before the time slot they had signed up for with five copies of
the emotion log attached to the email. They were instructed to complete one
emotion log at the end of each day for five consecutive days and were sent email
reminders each day. On the sixth day, participants brought their emotion logs to an
in-person data collection with approximately 20–30 other participants. At this data
collection, they completed the ACS, the STAXI-2, and a demographic question-
naire. The participants were asked to link their emotion logs to the questionnaire
packet before they turned them in. Though it is possible participants could have
simply completed all 5 days’ worth of emotion logs on the last day, they were
reminded of the emotion log each day to try and minimize that possibility.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Alpha coefficients for the ACS subscales demonstrated acceptable consistency with
alpha coefficients ranging from .68 (MC) to .82 (AP). As previous research has
identified gender differences on several of the variables, a one-way (gender)
MANOVA was computed on all variables. There were no multivariate gender
effects, F(22, 147) = 1.13, p = .33. Means and standard deviations are reported for
all variables in Table 1.
Primary Analyses
Correlations
Bivariate correlations were calculated to assess the relationships among the
subscales of the ACS, STAXI-2, and variables measured by the emotion logs (see
Table 2). The five maladaptive subscales and the total maladaptive processes score
were shown to be positively correlated with T-Ang, AX-Out, and AX-In and
negatively correlated with AC-Out and AC-In. In contrast, the adaptive processes
subscale was negatively correlated with T-Ang, AX-Out, and AX-In and positively
correlated with AC-Out and AC-In.
Angry Cognitions Scale 223
123
With regard to the emotion logs, the total maladaptive processes score and the
five maladaptive subscales were positively correlated with anger, sadness, and fear.
The only exception to this pattern was misattributing causation and fear, which were
uncorrelated. The AP subscale of the ACS was uncorrelated with the four average
daily emotions. All subscales but catastrophic evaluating and overgeneralizing were
correlated with the number of days in which anger was the most prominent emotion.
Finally, with regard to the six anger consequences, all subscales were correlated
in the expected directions with aggression. All subscales but misattributing
causation and adaptive processes were correlated with negative emotions. Likewise,
all but demandingness and adaptive processes were correlated with risky driving.
Table 1 Means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis for all variables (N = 181)
Variable M SD S K
1. TM 116.44 24.49 -.23 -.31
2. MC 18.24 4.75 .13 -.76
3. CE 25.48 5.78 -.12 .17
4. OV 23.94 5.81 -.11 -.14
5. DE 27.72 5.39 -.41 -.02
6. IL 21.36 7.31 .48 .47
7. AP 29.84 6.72 -.16 .12
8. T-Ang 18.60 4.52 .90 .81
9. AX-Out 14.90 3.57 1.04 1.64
10. AX-In 17.79 4.40 .44 .22
11. AC-Out 24.33 4.66 -.26 -.67
12. AC-In 23.00 4.92 .03 -.59
13. Log: Anger 15.62 12.89 1.16 1.30
14. Log: Happy 70.24 14.72 -.23 -.50
15. Log: Sad 20.19 15.08 1.32 2.67
16. Log: Fear 12.60 13.54 2.36 9.56
17. Log: NE 3.47 2.64 1.47 2.04
18. Log: Agg .29 .46 2.25 5.72
19. Log: DU 1.42 3.44 3.77 15.43
20. Log: SH .34 .67 2.79 8.32
21. Log: RD .52 1.22 3.47 15.84
22. Log: DF .35 .78 3.42 16.74
23. Log: Days angry .81 .98 1.21 .98
TM total maladaptive, MC misattributing causation, CE catastrophic evaluating, OV overgeneralizing, DE
demandingness, IL inflammatory labeling, AP adaptive processes, T-Ang trait anger, AX-Out anger
expression-out, AX-In anger expression-in, AC-Out anger control-out, AC-In anger control-in, Log: Anger
average anger rating, Log: Happy average happiness rating, Log: Sad average sadness rating, Log: Fear
average fear rating, Log: NE negative emotion, Log: Agg aggression, Log: DU drug use, Log: SH self-
harm, Log: RD risky driving, Log: DF damaged friendships, Log: Days angry number of days anger was
the primary emotion
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01
224 R. C. Martin, L. E. Vieaux
123
Only inflammatory labeling was correlated with damaged friendships, and nothing
was correlated with drug use or self-harm.
Regression Analyses
To determine which ACS subscales were most valuable in the prediction of anger-
related variables, stepwise multiple regressions were conducted. Trait anger, the
four anger expression scales, average daily anger rating, four of the anger
consequences, and the number of days anger was the primary emotion served as
dependent variables. Drug use and self-harm were not included in the analyses
because none of the ACS subscales were correlated with these two variables.
Table 2 Intercorrelations between the subscales of the ACS and all other variables (N = 181)
TM MC CE OV DE IL AP
1. TM –
2. MC .80** –
3. CE .90** .67** –
4. OV .89** .66** .81** –
5. DE .86** .62** .75** .76** –
6. IL .79** .53** .54** .58** .56** –
7. AP -.35** -.24** -.25** -.28** -.30** -.35** –
8. T-Ang .57** .42** .49** .50** .57** .42** -.33**
9. AX-Out .36** .28** .24** .31** .35** .32** -.29**
10. AX-In .42** .34** .45** .42** .34** .27** -.08
11. AC-Out -.44** -.35** -.31** -.39** -.37** -.40** .46**
12. AC-In -.40** -.32** -.32** -.36** -.30** -.35** .55**
13. Log: Anger .24** .19* .20** .22** .17* .23** -.14
14. Log: Happy -.33** -.25** -.31** -.31** -.23** -.27** .11
15. Log: Sad .25** .19* .24** .24** .19* .20** -.07
16. Log: Fear .19** .12 .20** .15* .17* .17* -.01
17. Log: NE .21** .12 .22** .19* .21** .15* -.04
18. Log: Agg .27** .18* .22** .21** .25** .26** -.18*
19. Log: DU .02 -.04 .03 .02 -.01 .05 .08
20. Log: SH .07 .04 .11 .27 .07 .08 -.00
21. Log: RD .21** .21** .19* .18* .12 .20** -.01
22. Log: DF .13 .12 .10 .06 .12 .21** -.10
23. Log: Days angry .16* .15* .11 .04 .16* .20** -.33**
TM total maladaptive, MC misattributing causation, CE catastrophic evaluating, OV overgeneralizing, DE
demandingness, IL inflammatory labeling, AP adaptive processes, T-Ang trait anger, AX-Out anger
expression-out, AX-In anger expression-in, AC-Out anger control-out, AC-In anger control-in, Log: Anger
average anger rating, Log: Happy average happiness rating, Log: Sad average sadness rating, Log: Fear
average fear rating, Log: NE negative emotion, Log: Agg aggression, Log: DU drug use, Log: SH self-
harm, Log: RD risky driving, Log: DF damaged friendships, Log: Days angry number of days anger was
the primary emotion
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01
Angry Cognitions Scale 225
123
All regressions were significant at the p \ .01 level (results for all regressions are
presented in Table 3). The ACS predicted between 4 % (risky driving) and 34 %
(trait anger and anger control-in) of the variance in the dependent variables.
Between one and three ACS subscales emerged as useful predictors for each
dependent variable. With regard to which predictors were selected most often,
adaptive processes emerged as useful for five of the dependent variables,
inflammatory labeling emerged for four variables; overgeneralizing, demanding-
ness, and catastrophic evaluating emerged for two variables; and misattributing
causation emerged for just one variable.
Table 3 Stepwise multiple regressions of the subscales of the ACS in predicting anger-related variables
(N = 181)
Variables B SEB b R2 DR2
Trait anger scale
1. DE .43 .05 .52** .32**
2. AP -.11 .04 -.17** .35** .03**
Anger expression-out
1. DE .19 .05 .29** .12**
2. AP -.11 .04 -.21** .16** .04**
Anger expression-in
1. CE .34 .05 .45** .20**
Anger control-out
1. AP .24 .05 .35** .21**
2. OV -.16 .06 -.20** .29** .08**
3. IL -.10 .05 -.16* .31** .02*
Anger control-in
1. AP .36 .05 .49** .30**
2. OV -.19 .05 -.22** .35** .05**
Log: Average anger rating
1. IL .40 .13 .23** .05**
Log: Negative emotions
1. CE .10 .03 .22** .05**
Log: Aggression
1. IL .02 .01 .26** .07**
Log: Risky driving
1. MC .05 .02 .21** .04**
Log: Damaged friendships
1. IL .02 .01 .21** .05**
Log: Number of days anger was the primary emotion
1. AP -.05 .01 -.33** .11**
MC misattributing causation, CE catastrophic evaluating, OV overgeneralizing, DE demandingness, IL
inflammatory labeling, AP adaptive processes, T-Ang trait anger, AX-Out anger expression-out, AX-In
anger expression-in
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01
226 R. C. Martin, L. E. Vieaux
123
Discussion
The current study extended the findings from Martin and Dahlen’s (2007, 2011)
studies on the reliability and validity of the ACS. In addition to demonstrating
strong internal consistencies for the ACS and replicating patterns of correlations
between the ACS and the STAXI-2, it also addressed limitations of the previous
research by utilizing emotion logs. In doing so, it adds to the validity of the ACS by
demonstrating relationships between the ACS and average daily anger ratings,
number of days where anger was experienced more than any other emotion, and
anger-related consequences. Finally, results from the regression analyses revealed
differing patterns of predictive validity for the ACS subscales with regard to anger-
related variables.
The pattern of relationships between the ACS subscales and the STAXI-2 were
exactly the same as those reported in Martin and Dahlen’s (2007) original paper on
the ACS and similar to those found in their (2011) follow-up study. The current
study addressed an important inconsistency found between the previous two articles
with regard to anger control-out. Like the original study (2007), the current project
found that all subscales of the ACS were correlated with anger control-out. This was
not found by Martin and Dahlen (2011), however, where it was found that the ACS
subscales were mostly uncorrelated with anger control-out. The inconsistency
between the two studies was addressed as an area of future research by Martin and
Dahlen (2011) and the findings from the current study suggest that the results from
the 2011 paper were an anomaly.
By using an emotion log to measure anger consequences, the current study
addressed two significant limitations of the previous evaluation of the ACS and
anger consequences (Martin and Dahlen 2007), demand characteristics and reliance
on retrospective report. In comparing the findings from these analyses, there are
both consistencies and inconsistencies. Both studies identified positive relationships
between the ACS subscales and three types of consequences: negative emotions,
aggression, and risky driving. However, the current study did not find any
relationships between the ACS subscales and drug use or self-harm, like was found
in the previous study. Similarly, the current study only identified a correlation
between one ACS subscale, inflammatory labeling, and damaged friendships, while
the previous study identified relationships between all subscales of the ACS and
damaged friendships.
It is likely that the differences found here reflect, in part, the use of emotion logs
as it eliminates the impact of demand characteristics. In that sense, the current study
provides a more accurate assessment of the ACS’s predictive validity than the
previous research. While that does mean that the ACS has less predictive utility than
was once thought, it should also be noted that the findings here suggest that how a
person tends to think when provoked affects not just how angry they tend to get (i.e.,
trait anger) and how they tend to express it (i.e., anger expression) but also that they
tend to get into physical or verbal fights, drive dangerously, or experience other
negative emotions associated with their anger. The fact that the thoughts we have, as
measured by the ACS, predict the types of consequences we experience as a result
of our anger suggests an impressive level of predictive utility.
Angry Cognitions Scale 227
123
Another new and important finding from the current study is that all of the ACS
subscales but adaptive processes were correlated with average daily anger ratings,
and four of the six subscales were correlated with the number of days that anger was
the most prominently experienced emotion. This has not been explored before with
the ACS and offers another example of its predictive utility. It was found that the
subscales of the ACS also correlated, by and large, with sadness, which could
suggest a lack of specificity of the ACS in measuring angry thoughts. However,
many of the thought types measured by the ACS (e.g., catastrophic evaluations,
overgeneralizing) are noted in the emotion literature as being relevant to multiple
emotions so this pattern of correlations would be expected. For instance, a tendency
to blow things out of proportion is associated with sadness and fear, as well as
anger, so one would expect it to be correlated with all three variables. Meanwhile, a
tendency to label people in offensive ways is predominantly associated with anger
so the stronger correlation between inflammatory labeling and anger than with
sadness or fear is also expected. Likewise, the finding that misattributing causation
(clearly more associated with anger than fear) is uncorrelated with fear is to be
expected.
Results from the regression analyses show how different patterns of angry
thoughts predict different experiences, expressions, and consequences of anger. For
instance, the findings that adaptive processes emerged as a useful predictor in five of
the eleven regressions and that inflammatory labeling emerged in four of these
regressions suggests that these types of thoughts, in particular, should be the focus
of cognitive therapies.
The current study was designed to explore the relationships between the ACS and
various anger-related variables while addressing limitations in the previous
literature. Though it could be argued that the current study still used retrospective
data because participants completed the questionnaires at the end of the day, it is
fair to assume that participants are much more able to reliably indicate how many
verbal fights, physical fights, etc. they had that day than they would be in the last
month.
To date, there have been three papers identifying the reliability and validity of the
ACS. There are, of course, still limitations of this study. For instance, we relied on
self-report data and used a college sample of participants. Likewise, because
participation was voluntary and students had many options for participation, it is
possible that our participants chose to get involved in this study because of its focus
on anger, suggesting that our sample was biased in some way. Future research
should take these concerns into account.
Despite these limitations, it would appear that the ACS is likely a valuable
measure of anger-related thoughts. Given that cognitive treatments of anger
emphasize the identification and restructuring of maladaptive thoughts, the logical
next steps are to explore the reliability and validity of the ACS with a sample of
clinically angry participants and to explore the clinical utility of the ACS in the
treatment of anger. It seems likely, however, that the ACS will be a valuable tool in
that regard.
228 R. C. Martin, L. E. Vieaux
123
References
Beck, A. T. (1999). Prisoners of hate: The cognitive basis of anger, hostility, and violence. New York,
NY: Harper Collins Publishers.
Bruehl, S., Liu, X., Burns, J. W., Chont, M., & Jamison, R. N. (2012). Associations between daily chronic
pain intensity, daily anger expression, and trait anger expressiveness: An ecological momentary
assessment study. Pain, 153, 2352–2358.
Dahlen, E. R., & Martin, R. C. (2005). The experience, expression, and control of anger in perceived
social support. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 391–401.
Dahlen, E. R., & Martin, R. C. (2006). Refining the anger consequences questionnaire. Personality and
Individual Differences, 41, 1021–1031.
Deffenbacher, J. L. (1992). Trait anger: Theory, findings, and implications. In C. D. Spielberger & J.
N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 9, pp. 177–201). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Deffenbacher, J. L. (1996). Cognitive-behavioral approaches to anger reduction. In K. S. Dobson & K.
D. Craig (Eds.), Advances in cognitive-behavioral therapy (pp. 31–62). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deffenbacher, J. L. (2006). Evidence for effective treatment of anger-related disorders. In E. L. Feindler
(Ed.), Anger related disorders: A practitioner’s guide to comparative treatments (pp. 43–69). New
York: Springer.
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., & Tafrate, R. C. (2007). Understanding anger disorders. New York, NY: Oxford.
DiGiuseppe, R., & Tafrate, R. C. (2011). Anger regulation and expression scale. North Tonawanda, NY:
Multi-Health Systems.
Dryden, W. (1990). Dealing with anger problems: Rational-emotive therapeutic interventions. Sarasota,
FL: Practitioner’s Resource Exchange, Inc.
Eckhardt, C., & Jamison, T. R. (2002). Articulated thoughts of male dating violence perpetrators during
anger arousal. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26, 289–308.
Eckhardt, C., & Kassivove, H. (1998). Articulated cognitive distortions and cognitive deficiencies in
maritally violent men. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 12, 231–248.
Eiden, R. D., Leonard, K. E., Colder, C. R., Homish, G. G., Schuetze, P., Gray, T. R., et al. (2012). Anger,
hostility, and aggression as predictors of persistent smoking during pregnancy. Journal of Studies on
Alcohol and Drugs, 73, 926–932.
Ellis, A. (1977). How to live with- and without-anger. New York, NY: Reader’s Digest Press.
Helmers, K. F., Posluszny, D. M., & Krantz, D. S. (1994). Associations of hostility and coronary artery
disease: A review of studies. In A. W. Siegman & T. W. Smith (Eds.), Anger, hostility, and the heart
(pp. 67–96). Hinsdale, NJ: Lawrence, Erlbaum.
Izard, C. E. (1972). Patterns of emotions: A new analysis of anxiety and depression. New York:
Academic Press.
Loehman, J. E., Boxmeyer, C. L., & Powell, N. P. (2012). Cognitive-behavioral intervention for anger
and aggression: The Coping Power Program. In S. R. Jimerson, A. B. Nickerson, M. J. Mayer, & M.
J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of school violence and school safety: International research and
practice (2nd ed., pp. 579–591). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
Martin, R. C., & Dahlen, E. R. (2004). Irrational beliefs and the experience and expression of anger.
Journal of Rational Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 22, 3–20.
Martin, R. C., & Dahlen, E. R. (2007). The Angry Cognitions Scale: A new inventory for assessing
cognitions in anger. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 25, 155–173.
Martin, R. C., & Dahlen, E. R. (2011). Angry thoughts and response to provocation: Validity of the Angry
Cognitions Scale. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 29, 65–76.
Mizes, J. S., Morgan, G. D., & Buder, J. (1990). The relationship of cognitions, assertion, and anger
arousal. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 4, 369–376.
Nichols, A., & Maner, J. K. (2008). The good-subject effect: Investigating participant demand
characteristics. Journal of General Psychology, 135, 151–165.
Sirois, B. C., & Burg, M. M. (2003). Negative emotion and coronary heart disease: A review. Behavior
Modification, 27, 83–102.
Angry Cognitions Scale 229
123
Snyder, C. R., Crowson, J. R., Houston, B., Kurylo, M., & Poirier, J. (1997). Assessing hostile automatic
thoughts: Development and validation of the HAT Scale. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21,
477–492.
Spielberger, C. D. (1999). State-trait anger expression inventory-revised. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc.
Sukhodolsky, D. G., Golub, A., & Cromwell, E. N. (2001). Development and validation of the Anger
Rumination Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 689–700.
Sukhodolsky, D. G., & Scahill, L. (2012). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for anger and aggression in
children. New York: Guilford Press.
Tafrate, R. C., Kassinove, H., & Dundin, L. (2002). Anger episodes in high and low trait anger
community adults. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 1573–1590.
230 R. C. Martin, L. E. Vieaux
123