development of a russian state–trait anger expression inventory

Development of a Russian State–Trait AngerExpression Inventory

Ä

Howard Kassinove, Denis G. SukhodolskyHofstra University

Ä

Christopher I. EckhardtUniversity of North Carolina at Wilmington

Ä

Sergei V. TsytsarevHofstra University

We examined the possible universality of Spielberger’s (1988) model ofanger by validating a Russian State–Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).In Eckhardt, Kassinove, Tsytsarev, and Sukhodolsky (1995), support wasfound for all STAXI factors except anger-in, using students from St. Peters-burg State University. In the present study, 346 students from Russianhigh schools and the Pavlov Medical School served as subjects. Usingnew items, we found strong support for the factor structure hypothesizedby Spielberger. All scales showed good to excellent alphas, and there wassubstantial similarity of the current means with results from the earlierstudy. The Russian samples, however, showed a lower level of state anger.The data support the possibility that state anger consists of two sub-scales, a simple experience and an experience combined with an actiontendency. Trait anger occurs as a general temperament or as a reaction tospecific triggers. It is positively related to anger-out and negatively relatedto anger control. Future studies can use this instrument to evaluate thestability of anger in Russian speaking populations, and to assess angerexperiences and expression in response to specific triggers. © 1997 JohnWiley & Sons, Inc. J Clin Psychol 53: 543–557, 1997

We thank Svetlana Solovyaya for her help in collecting the data at the Pavlov Medical School and Genadi Sukhodolskyfor collecting the Russian high school data. We also acknowledge the help with translations and data entry, and thethoughtful suggestions provided by Igor Davidson, Merry McVey and Stephen Terracciano.Copies of the Russian STAXI can be obtained by writing to Howard Kassinove, Ph.D., Professor and Chairperson,Department of Psychology, 127 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, 11550.

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 53(6), 543–557 (1997)© 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0021-9762/97/060543-15

Anger is a frequently experienced negative emotion which, by comparison to anxiety anddepression, has been relatively ignored in the psychological literature (Kassinove & Sukhod-olsky, 1995a) and has been called the “forgotten emotion” by DiGiuseppe, Tafrate, & Eckhardt(1994). This neglect of anger is surprising since it can be a frequent, intense, and enduringexperience (Averill, 1982, 1983). In addition, while there are some positive aspects to theexperience and expression of anger, it is most often associated with disruptive intrapersonaland interpersonal consequences (Ellis, 1977). According to Deffenbacher (1992, 1995), mod-erate to intense overt anger may lead to a variety of negative outcomes such as poor evaluationby others, lowered self-esteem, interpersonal conflicts, and occupational maladjustment. Eck-hardt and Kassinove (1995) have shown that maritally assaultive men emit a variety of angryand anger inducing verbalizations which may be causative of emotionally stimulated aggres-sion against their partners. In addition, there is evidence that both the expression and suppres-sion of anger are linked to coronary artery disease (Siegman, 1994), increased pulse rate(Funkenstein, King, & Drolette, 1954), and hypertension (Kulius, Schneider, & Egan, 1985),and that angry ruminations can lead to a variety of medical problems (Greer & Morris, 1975;Harburg, Blakelock, & Roeper, 1979; Harburg, Glieberman, Russell, & Cooper, 1991; Kalis,Harris, Bennett, & Sokolow, 1961; Spielberger, Crane, Kearns, Pellegrin, & Rickman, 1991).

Given that anger is related to these kinds of negative outcomes it is important to be able tomeasure it reliably and validly. According to Spielberger, Reiheiser, and Sydeman (1995), earlyefforts were based on simple observations of behavior, clinical interviews, projective tests suchas the Rorschach and Thematic Apperception Test, physiological assessments such as the gal-vanic skin response or heart rate, and self-report psychometric scales. However, there weremany ambiguities about what was actually being measured due to the historical lack of differ-entiation among the constructs of anger, hostility, and aggression. In addition, universal agree-ment does not even exist on the meaning of the terms feeling and emotion. Kassinove andSukhodolsky (1995a) recommended using the termfeeling to refer to “language-based, self-perceived, phenomenological state(s),” andemotionto refer “to the complex of self-perceivedfeeling state, physiological reaction patterns, and associated behaviors” (p. 6). They suggestedthat anger can be seen, “. . . as anegative, phenomenological (or internal)feelingstate associ-ated with cognitive and perceptual distortions and deficiencies (e.g., misappraisals, errors, andattributions of blame, injustice, preventability and/or intentionality), subjective labeling, phys-iological changes, and action tendencies to engage in socially constructed and reinforced behav-ioral scripts” (Kassinove & Sukhodolsky, 1995a, p. 7). Accordingly, it can be assessed byreliable self-report tests which can then be linked to other variables of interest such as overtaggressive motor patterns or physiological reactions and medical problems.

In this tradition, Spielberger’s (1988) model represented an important advancement inanger assessment. His model recognized the importance of separating anger from related con-structs such as hostility (defined as attitudes which motivate aggressive behavior) and aggres-sion (defined as destructive and punitive behaviors), and it clearly separated felt experiencesfrom modes of expression. The model allowed for the development of a psychometricallysound self-report device known as the State–Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI; Spiel-berger, 1988).1 Although other self-report devices exist (e.g., Snell, Gum, Shuck, Mosley, &Hite, 1995), the STAXI has become the standard in the field.

The STAXI consists of six scales and two subscales measuring the experience and expres-sion of anger. Experiences of anger are divided into State Anger (defined as transitory condi-tions that vary in intensity from mild annoyance to intense fury) and Trait Anger (defined as the

1 In this paper, items from the English version of the STAXI by Charles D. Spielberger, Ph.D. [Copyright 1979, 1986,1988] are reproduced by special permission of the publisher, Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc., 16204 N.Florida Ave., Lutz, Florida.

544 Journal of Clinical Psychology, October 1997

tendency to experience states of anger more frequently in response to various provocations anda predisposition to perceive a wider range of situations as frustrating or annoying). Trait Angeris further divided into Angry Temperament, defined as a tendency to experience and expressanger without specific provocations and Angry Reaction, defined as a propensity to becomeangry when provoked by specific events such as personal criticism, neglect, or rejection.

Anger expression is divided into Anger-Out, Anger-In, and Anger Control modes basedpartially on directionality. Anger-Out (AX/Out) refers to the extent to which an individualexpresses anger toward other people or objects in the environment. In response to the sentencestem, “When Angry or Furious . . . ,” the outward expression of anger is assessed by the endorse-ment of items such as, “I make sarcastic remarks to others” or “I say nasty things.” Anger-In(AX/In) refers to the frequency with which angry feeling are held in or suppressed, and isassessed by the endorsement of items such as “I boil inside, but don’t show it” and “I amangrier than I am willing to admit.” Anger control (AX/Control) refers to the effective controlor reduction of anger, as measured by the endorsement of items such as “I keep my cool” and“I control my behavior.”

The factor structure of the STAXI as reported by Spielberger (1988) has received strongempirical support in a number of studies (Fuqua et al., 1991; Spielberger, 1988; and see Spiel-berger, Reheiser, & Sydeman, 1995 for a review). Internal consistency coefficients for thesubscales range from .70 to .89 indicating strong relationships among the scales’ items. Theanger experience and expression scales have good test–retest reliability, internal consistency,content, concurrent and discriminant validity, and have a factor structure which is relativelyuniform across criterion groups (Crane, 1981; Deffenbacher, 1992; Fuqua et al., 1991; Spiel-berger, 1988; Westberry, 1980).

After the relevance of a set of constructs in a given population has been demonstrated, thequestion arises as to whether they can be tapped in other populations. This issue has beenparticularly addressed in cross-cultural psychology in a debate between the universalist andrelativist perspectives (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992). The universalist positionassumes that psychological phenomena are likely to be common for all human beings but maybe modified by their cultures. Thus, if the reliability and validity of an American psychologicaltest are demonstrated in other cultures, indicating that the constructs also exist in those cultures,it adds support for the universalist position. The demonstration of a construct’s relevance inother cultures also adds to the evidence of its conceptual validity. With regard to the angerconstructs under consideration in this paper, the STAXI has been translated into a number offoreign languages including Spanish, French, Hebrew, and Portuguese (personal communica-tion, B. Van Antwerp, February 14, 1994). In Holland, a confirmatory factor analysis of theDutch adaptation of the State–Trait Anger Scale provided cross-cultural evidence for the two-component nature of trait anger (Van de Ploeg, 1988), and in Great Britain, Knight, Chisholm,Paulin, & Waal–Manning (1988) found empirical support for the factor structure of the STAXI.

Since 1991, our own research team has engaged in a number of collaborative projects withRussian scientists from St. Petersburg State University, the Top Security Hospital of St. Peters-burg, and the Pavlov Medical School in St. Petersburg (e.g., Eckhardt, Kassinove, Sukhodol-sky, & Terracciano, 1994; Kassinove & Eckhardt, 1994; Kassinove & Sukhodolsky, 1995b;Kassinove & Sukhodolsky, 1995c, Sukhodolsky, Tsytsarev & Kassinove, 1995). In addition tounderstanding patterns of thought, affect, and behavior in the Russian culture, one specific aimwas to develop a reliable and valid Russian version of the STAXI in order to evaluate therelationship of anger components to other behavior patterns.

It seems particularly important to develop a Russian STAXI for at least two reasons. First,some Western-developed psychometric instruments such as the MMPI (Hathaway, & McKin-ley, 1943) and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (Wechsler, 1955) are available in Russianlanguage format and are used regularly in larger cities such as Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, and

Russian State–Trait 545

St. Petersburg. However, with rare exceptions such as the State–Trait Anxiety Scale (Hanin &Spielberger, 1983), few scales that assessspecificemotions have been revalidated and restan-dardized on Russian samples. Rather, simple translations have been made and, decisions aboutpeople are often based on American norms or norms based on convenience samples from largercities. Given the vastness of the Russian Federation and the educational and social differencesof larger cities versus rural areas, combined with the growth of Western oriented practitioners,clinical decisions are being made about individuals who are seeking help which may be inac-curate. Many problems will emerge if this mode of operation continues. Second, in the mostrecent U.S. population census almost 250,000 people reported Russian as the main languagespoken in their home (1990 Census of Population and Housing), and this number is rapidlyincreasing. In 1993, for example, almost 60,000 people immigrated to America from the formerUSSR. These people receive a variety of psychological services in America and the Russianversion of STAXI may, thus, have pragmatic utility. Finally, a Russian version of the STAXI canbe used in a variety of collaborative research projects with other countries of the former USSR.

A preliminary version of the Russian STAXI, based upon a direct translation of the original44 STAXI items, was developed in 1995 by Eckhardt, Kassinove, Tsytsarev, and Sukhodolsky.The results provided initial support for Spielberger’s model of anger in a sample of 120 Rus-sian students from St. Petersburg State University. The scales, with the exception of AX/In(a 5 .57), showed internal consistency reliability coefficients ranging from .72 to .88. Inaddition, the means and standard deviations in the Russian sample were generally comparableto those of the American standardization sample (Spielberger, 1988), with few differences ofmore than one or two points. However, the State Anger scores in the American normativesample, especially those of the men, were much higher (4.37 points) than found in the Russiansample. In the Russian sample, there were few gender differences. However, men scored higherthan women on Anger-Out and on the Total Anger Expression score. This did not correspond toresults from Spielberger’s American sample where there were no AX/Out gender differences.Our preliminary results provided initial cross-cultural support for the Spielberger model ofanger, adding to evidence for the universal nature of the anger experience and anger expressionconstructs. Quantitative differences between Russian and American samples were interpretedas due to the different levels of the construct in the samples, but not to the validity of theconstructs in the two cultures. Of course, the small and homogeneous nature of the Russiansample also suggested caution in interpretation of similarities and differences.

Of significance, a separate and reliable AX/In factor was not observed in the initial study.Obviously, the experience and expression of anger could vary across different cultures and thisvariation could have contributed to the failure of obtaining a distinct AX/In factor in the Rus-sian sample. If true, it would support the relativist position. On the other hand, the verbalrepresentation or labeling of emotions differs across different languages (Russell, 1991), andemotional meaning may be reflected differently in verbal connotations (Davitz, 1969). Forexample, there are at least two equivalents for the English word anger in the Russian language.The first, “zlost,” seems to refer to an unjustified and perhaps immature feeling of anger andmay resemble the English word “petulance.” However, “petulance” actually refers more to abehavior pattern than to a feeling. In contrast, “gnev” seems to refer to anger which is appro-priate and justified from the standpoint of the social rules of the Russian culture. These words,we note, do not refer merely to intensity differences for there are also Russian words forannoyance (raz-dra-zhyenee-ye) and rage (yarost). Thus, the inability of the directly translatedoriginal STAXI AX/In items to verify the construct could have reflected either the irrelevanceof the anger-in construct in the Russian population or the inability of the directly translateditems to directly tap the construct.

The purpose of the present study, thus, was threefold. First, we wanted to attempt to rep-licate our original findings on the directly translated STAXI, in which most of the scales were


supported. Second, if possible, we wanted to develop a reliable version of an AX/In scale in theRussian version. Finally, we wanted to use a larger and different sample in order to increase thegeneralizability of the original results.

METHOD

Subjects

Two samples of Russian students participated in this study. The first group consisted of 108high school students from the city of St. Petersburg. There were 54 males and 54 females. Thesecond group of 238 students (80 males and 158 females) was drawn from the Pavlov MedicalSchool in St. Petersburg. In Russia, students may enter a medical school immediately upongraduation from high school and, thus, in some ways these students resemble American tech-nical university students. However, they differ from the original group of students used byEckhardt et al. (1995) who were studying (i.e., majoring) in the faculties of mathematics andpsychology. In contrast, the present subjects chose to enter a specific professional school ratherthan the broader spectrum St. Petersburg State University.

Of the entire sample of 346, 93% were single. Their mean age was 18.11 (SD5 2.84), witha range of 14 to 32 years. Reflecting the emerging religious picture in Russia, 233 (79%)reported their religion to be “orthodox” (i.e., Russian Orthodox), 51 (17%) indicated they were“agnostic or atheist,” 10 (3%) indicated “Protestant,” “Catholic,” or “other,” and 62 (16%) leftthe question unanswered. In response to the question, “To what extent do you practice yourreligion” (1 5 Not at all; 55 My whole approach to life is based on my religion), the meanscore was 1.90 (SD 5 .89). It is important to note that in Russia it is currently somewhatfaddish to wear religious items and indicate that one is religious, in the same way that it wasimportant to indicate that one was an atheist 10 years ago.

Materials

The preliminary Russian State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (R-STAXI) was directly trans-lated from the American version. Each item was rated on a four-point scale to assess the fre-quency or intensity of angry feelings and whether a particular mode of anger expression istypically used. The original American and Russian versions contained 44 items, which formedsix scales and two subscales.

Anger experiences.The 10-itemState Anger Scalemeasures the intensity of angry feelings ata given moment in time while the 10-itemTrait Anger Scaleassesses individual differences inthe cross-situational disposition to experience states of anger. Two factor-derived subscalescomprise Trait Anger. TheTrait Anger-Temperament(TA/Temperament) subscale (four items)assesses the extent to which individuals experience anger in theabsenceof direct provocationwhile the Trait Anger-Reaction(TA-Reaction) subscale (four items) measures anger experi-ences as a result of specific triggers such as criticism or unfair treatment by others.

Anger expression.There are four scales designed to measure various aspects of the model.Eight items comprise the AX/In scale which measures how frequently angry feelings are sup-pressed or inhibited. However, as noted above, this scale was not adequately replicated in thepreliminary Russian version. Thus, 22 new items were developed which were judged by theauthors to reflect an anger-in style of expressing angry feelings, and which made logical andconceptual sense in the Russian language. The R-STAXI used in this study began with 30anger-in items (the 22 new items plus the original 8 items).Anger-Outis also an eight-item


scale which assesses how frequently the individual expresses anger toward others or objects.Items on this scale, from a purely behavioral perspective, might be considered as measures ofverbal aggression (e.g., “I make sarcastic remarks to others”) or motor aggression (e.g., “I dothings like slam doors”). The eight-itemAnger Control Scalemeasures a style of attempts tomodify experienced angry feelings and actively control the outward expression of anger. Thefinal scale,Anger Expression Total, is a general index of the frequency of anger expression(regardless of direction) and is comprised of the AX/In and AX/Out scales, while adjusting forAnger Control.

Translations

All 44 Russian translated items used by Eckhardt et al. (1995) were also used in the presentstudy to allow for replication of our initial results. Those items were translated by a native,Russian speaking clinical psychologist (Tsytsarev) with assistance from a Russian psychiatrist.They were then back-translated by an advanced clinical psychology doctoral candidate (Sukhod-olsky) and an assistant, both of whom were born and educated in the former USSR. Because ofthe unique idioms used in English to describe anger (e.g., “harboring grudges,” “keeping cool”vs. “feeling burned up”), several items did not have an exact Russian translation and adjust-ments were made. The complete research team then held discussions to resolve conflicts. The22 new AX/In items used in the present study (generated by Sukhodolsky and Tsytsarev), wereback translated by another Russian speaking American assistant (born in the Ukraine), and anyminor discrepancies were discussed by team members.

RESULTS

Anger Expression

Because the initial study failed to produce an internally consistent AX/In scale, a series ofanalyses were first undertaken to determine the best 24 items that would fit a three factor(AX/In, AX/Out, AX/Control) model for modes of anger expression. The original 24 angerexpression items from the American STAXI and the 22 new Ax/In items were subjected to aprincipal components analysis, using listwise deletion of cases with missing values. After set-ting the number of desired factors to three, an oblimin rotation converged in 14 iterations toprovide simple structure. However, since the factors were not highly correlated, it was decidedto proceed with a varimax rotation which converged in five iterations. The three factors explained35.4% of the variance.

Of the original eight AX/In items from the American STAXI, five loaded on a factor welabeled AX/In. Their loadings ranged from .68 to .49. Three of the new items were also uniquelyassociated with this factor, with loadings from .68 to .52. Three other new items with strongloadings on this factor and another factor, or that did not make conceptual sense, were notselected for inclusion on the final AX/In scale.

All of the original eight AX/Out items loaded on one factor, from .65 to .23, and no otheritems load directly on this factor. Thus, all of the original items were selected for final inclu-sion. Of the original eight AX/Control items, five loaded together. However, two of the newitems originally classified as AX/In, and one original AX/In item, also loaded on this factor. Areexamination of these items suggested that the Russian verbs used were quite “strong” andsuggested a control process rather than simply an inward directionality. Thus, the five originalAX/Control items were added to the three items originally classified as anger-in to form a neweight item AX/Control scale.


The 24 selected anger expression items were then subjected to a new principal componentsanalysis (Table 1). Following a varimax rotation which converged after three iterations, threefactors emerged which explained 43.9% of the variance. Table 1 shows the factor loadings ofthe 24 items. Each of the items loaded on the expected factor, based on the initial analysis.Thus, these 24 items were then considered as final items.

Factor Structure—Complete Scale

Once the 24 anger expression items were selected, a principal components analysis of thecomplete 44-item scale was performed. An oblimin rotation failed to converge and, thus, avarimax rotation was used which converged in 13 iterations and led to a 9-factor solution. Ascree test, however, suggested a 7-factor solution with strong to moderate first and secondfactors explaining 19.4 and 10.8% of the variance respectively (eigenvalues of 8.53 and 4.75),and with all seven factors explaining 50.8% of the variance.

Table 2 presents the seven factors and the varimax-rotated factor loadings of .30 or higherfor all 44 items. The factors were generally easy to interpret and provide support for thisversion of the Russian STAXI and for Spielberger’s model within the Russian culture. Factor 1

Table 1. Factor Loadings of the 24 Selected Anger Expression Items Following Varimax Rotation

Factors

Item1

(Anger Control)2

(Anger-In)3

(Anger-Out)

39 I control my behavior (.79) −.02 .0660 I control my angry feelings (.77) .03 −.0822 I control my temper (.76) .03 −.0928 I don’t give my anger any outlet (.66) .12 −.2025 I keep things in (.64) .25 −.1747 I can stop myself from losing my temper (.64) .09 −.0327 I am patient with others (.60) −.13 −.2848 Nothing can force me to show my anger (.59) .09 −.2544 I tend to harbor grudges that I don’t tell anyone about .11 (.68) .0364 My anger doesn’t find a way out and I remain agitated −.06 (.68) .0538 I won’t forget the insult .13 (.61) .0850 I am angrier than I am willing to admit −.03 (.56) .1229 I pout or sulk −.07 (.56) −.0456 I am irritated a great deal more than people are aware of .15 (.54) .2243 My aggravation builds up without release .07 (.53) −.0331 I withdraw from people −.07 (.51) .1233 I make sarcastic remarks to others −.03 .17 (.69)54 I say nasty things −.25 .23 (.67)41 I argue with others −.29 .09 (.65)45 I strike out at whatever infuriates me −.08 .11 (.62)59 If someone annoys me I’m apt to tell him or her how I feel −.17 −.14 (.62)36 I do things like slam doors −.34 .11 (.39)24 I express my anger −.49 .01 (.39)57 I lose my temper −.58 .15 (.25)

Eigenvalues 5.64 3.34 1.55Percentage of variance 23.5 13.9 6.4

Note.—Significant loadings shown in parentheses.


clearly represented AX/Control, as all eight of the original anger control items loaded on thisfactor at .60 or higher. Factor 2 clearly represented State Anger, as all eight of the original itemsloaded on this factor at .31 or higher. Items 1 and 6 which appear to load on factor 2 actuallyhad much higher loadings on factor 7.

Table 2. Factor Loadings of All 44 Russian STAXI Items Following Varimax Rotation and Scree Test

Factors

1AX/Control

2StateAnger

3T/AngerReaction

4AX/Out

5T/Anger

Temperament

6AX/In

#1

7AX/In

#2

ITEM 39 .76ITEM 60 .76ITEM 22 .75ITEM 28 .68ITEM 25 .66ITEM 47 .63ITEM 48 .61ITEM 27 .60ITEM 57 −.55ITEM 24 −.48 .41ITEM 9 .72ITEM 10 .68ITEM 7 .67ITEM 2 .66ITEM 3 .63ITEM 5 .63ITEM 8 .62ITEM 4 .51ITEM 15 .76ITEM 20 .75ITEM 18 .65ITEM 14 .48 .31ITEM 19 .46ITEM 54 .68ITEM 33 .67ITEM 17 −.30 .32 .57ITEM 41 −.33 .54ITEM 36 −.34 .42ITEM 12 .71ITEM 13 .69ITEM 11 .67ITEM 16 .65ITEM 50 .64ITEM 29 .63ITEM 43 .56ITEM 31 .36 .56ITEM 56 .38 .46ITEM 38 .77ITEM 44 .71ITEM 64 .37 .62ITEM 1 .38 .72ITEM 6 .31 .67

Eigenvalues 8.53 4.75 2.83 1.93 1.61 1.46 .123Percentage of variance 19.4 10.8 6.4 4.4 3.7 3.3 2.8


Factor 3 represented T/Ang-Reaction. However, in addition to loading by items 14, 15, 18,and 20, we also found that item 19 loaded on this factor. This item also loaded on a T/Ang-Reaction factor in Eckhardt et al. (1995). Factor 4 represented AX/Out. Six of the eight AX/Outitems loaded from .68 to .41. Item 45 (“I strike out at whatever infuriates me”), item 57 (“I losemy temper”) and item 59 (“If someone annoys me I’m apt to tell them how I feel”) seem veryclearly to represent the outward expression of anger. However, they did not load cleanly on anyof the first seven factors. Items 45 and 59 could have formed a separate factor, as they loadedtogether at .59 and .67 on factor nine, had we chosen a nine-factor solution as suggested bychoosing eigenvalues above 1.0. These two items may represent a particular type of anger-outexpression in the Russian culture, or may have become separated based on the particular set ofRussian verbs chosen. Factor 5 clearly represented T/Ang-Temperament. Items 11, 12, 13, and16 loaded cleanly here (all above .65) which corresponds to the four American items on thisfactor and the results of Eckhardt et al. (1995).

Factor 6 and factor 7 might both be labeled as AX/In. Factor 6 was represented by items50, 29, 43, 31, and 56, which loaded at .46 or higher. They were all classified as AX/In in the24 items analysis reported above. Items 38, 44, and 64 loaded cleanly on factor 7, at .62 orhigher, and were classified as AX/In in the 24 item analysis. Interestingly, these three items (“Iwon’t forget an insult”; “I tend to harbor grudges that I don’t tell anyone about”; “My angerdoesn’t find a way out and I remain agitated”) seem to refer to a time dimension. This does notseem to be true of the items on factor 6. Perhaps the inward expression of anger might berepresented as both a state and a longer term pattern of responding.

Factor Structure—State Anger and Trait Anger

In order to compare the present results to our original findings, we performed individual prin-cipal components analyses for the 10 State Anger and the 10 Trait Anger items. This alsoallowed us to compare our results with those of Spielberger (1988) who performed these indi-vidual scale analyses.

State Anger.Eckhardt et al. (1995), Fuqua et al. (1991), Spielberger, et al. (1995), and Van derPloeg (1988) have each indicated that State Anger may not be unidimensional. Evidence sug-gests that two factors may underlie the state anger construct. Thus, we began with an obliminrotation and set the number of factors to two. Table 3 presents the results of this analysis. Thetwo factor solution converged in 7 iterations and explained 54.1% of the variance. Since thefactors were moderately correlated (.42), we retained the oblimin solution. Although eight ofthe items loaded on factor 1, six of these also loaded on factor 2 and some (items 4 and 8)loaded quite strongly on factor 2. Factor 2 was made up of only two items (“I am furious; I ammad”) and seems to reflect a “state without action intent.” In contrast, the only two items toload solely on factor 1 (item 7, “I feel like banging on the table” and item 10, “I feel likeswearing”) seem to reflect action tendencies.

Trait Anger.The principal components analysis on Trait Anger was carried out to confirm whatwas found in the factor analysis of all 44 items in this paper, what was found by Spielberger(1988) for the American version, and the findings of Eckhardt et al. (1995) for the preliminaryversion of the Russian STAXI. That is, that Trait Anger has two components: T/Ang-Temperament and T/Ang-Reaction.

When the number of allowable factors was set to two, a varimax rotation converged inthree iterations and provided a better solution than the oblimin rotation. The two factors explained51.8% of the variance. Table 4 presents the results of this analysis. Six items had loadings of


.44 to .75 on factor 1, which clearly represented T/Ang-Reaction. These six items included thefour that are traditionally used in the American version of the STAXI (items 14, 15, 18, and 20)and the other two items which loaded in the principal components analysis of the full 44 itemspresented above. Item 17, however, loaded on both factors. Since item 19 had the lowestloading and item 17 loaded on both factors, it was concluded that the best representation ofT/Ang-Reaction is found in the same four items (14, 15, 18, and 20) used in the Americanversion. Factor 2 is T/Ang-Temperament, and is represented by items 11, 12, 13, and 16 as isfound in the American STAXI. Again, it was decided to eliminate item 17 which loaded on bothfactors. Thus, as in the American STAXI, TA-Temperament is represented by items 11, 12, 13,and 16.

Table 3. Factor Loadings of the 10 State Anger ItemsFollowing Oblimin Rotation

Factors

Item 1 2

9 I am burned up .79 .353 I feel angry .71 .4110 I feel like swearing .702 I feel irritated .68 .318 I feel like hitting someone .68 .555 I feel like breaking things .66 .397 I feel like banging on the table .634 I feel like yelling at somebody .60 .511 I am furious .38 .876 I am mad .42 .79

Eigenvalues 4.37 1.03Percentage of variance 43.8 10.3

Table 4. Factor Loadings of the 10 Trait Anger Items Following Varimax Rotation

Factors

Item

1Trait Anger/

Reaction

2Trait Anger/Temperament

20 I feel infuriated when I do a good job and get a poor evaluation .7515 I feel annoyed when I am not given recognition for doing good work .7518 It makes me furious when I am criticized in front of others .7214 I get angry when I’m slowed down by other’s mistakes .6019 When I get frustrated, I feel like hitting someone .5617 When I get mad, I say nasty things .44 .4216 I fly off the handle .7613 I am a hotheaded person .7511 I am quick tempered .7312 I have a fiery temper .71

Eigenvalues 3.76 1.42Percent of variance 37.6 14.2


Descriptive Data and Reliability of the Russian STAXI

We decided to first examine any differences which might exist between the high school andmedical school students. A series oft tests were performed on State Anger, Trait Anger, TraitAnger-Temperament, TraitAnger-Reaction,Anger-In,Anger-Out,Anger-Control and TotalAngerExpression. None of them were significant and the data were thus collapsed across this variablefor further analyses.

Table 5 presents the means, standard deviations, and internal consistency estimates (acoefficients) for the Russian STAXI, separated by sex and for the entire sample. Overall, thesedata are remarkably similar to what was found in the original sample of St. Petersburg Univer-sity students (Eckhardt et al., 1995) and to the data provided by Spielberger (1988).

With regard to State Anger, the present mean scores for Russian males and females (12.00and 11.28) are within one-half of a point originally found for the St. Petersburg male andfemale students (11.52 and 10.97). Given ourN of 346, it is rather easy for small differences tobe statistically significant and in the current data set the .73 point higher score of the men wasstatistically different from that of the women (see Table 5).

On the Trait Anger scales the scores were very similar to those found in the original St.Petersburg State University sample, with no difference of more than 1.32 points on Trait Anger,T/Ang-Temperament or T/Ang-Reaction. In addition, the difference between the current meansand those in the STAXI manual for American college students is less than one-half a point forboth men and women. The differences in T/Ang-Temperament and T/Ang-Reaction are nevermore than 1.03 points, for men and women considered separately. Finally, we found no sexdifferences in Trait Anger, T/Ang-Temperament, or T/Ang-Reaction which corresponds to theEckhardt et al. data set.

With regard to the expression of anger, the current group scored lower on AX/In (by 1.62points for men and 2.69 points for women) than did the original group of St. Petersburg StateUniversity students. This probably reflects the different items used in the present study. Inaddition, the current group of men scored significantly higher than the current group of women.On AX/Out, the current mean scores were 1.66 points lower for men, and about 1.04 pointshigher for women as compared with the St. Petersburg sample. In the current data set there wereno significant sex differences, while in the St. Petersburg data set men were significantly higheron AX/Out. With regard to AX/Control, the current group of men and the women both hadmean scores that were 1.64 points higher than in the St. Petersburg University samples. In

Table 5. Means, Standard Deviations, and Alpha Coefficients by Gender on the Russian STAXI

Males Females Total

Scales M SD M SD t a M SD

State Anger 12.00 (3.50) 11.28 (2.73) 2.15* .86 11.56 (3.05)Trait Anger 19.59 (5.23) 20.75 (5.38) 1.91 .81 20.30 (5.35)Anger Temperament 7.29 (2.49) 7.71 (2.60) 1.47 .76 7.55 (2.56)Anger Reaction 8.81 (2.66) 9.28 (2.81) 1.52 .72 9.08 (2.77)Anger-In 16.10 (4.86) 15.02 (4.37) 2.09* .74 15.44 (4.59)Anger-Out 15.54 (3.94) 16.07 (4.20) 1.15 .77 15.87 (4.11)Anger Control 22.91 (4.78) 20.89 (5.15) 3.59** .86 21.67 (5.10)Anger Expression Total 24.87 (9.80) 26.26 (9.15) 1.28 — 25.74 (9.39)

Note.—n for males ranged from 119 to 132; n for females ranged from 196 to 209.*p < .05.**p < .01.


addition, the mean score for the current group of men was significantly higher than for thewomen. Thus, the current group of men were more likely to hold their anger in and to attemptto control it, as compared with the women.

Relationships Among the Scales

Table 6 presents the Pearson correlations among the various subscales on the R-STAXI. Cor-relations of .31 and above would explain more than 10% of the variance and will now bediscussed. As expected, Trait Anger was positively related to State Anger and is congruent withthe definition that people higher on anger as a trait are more likely to experience it in varioussituations. Trait Anger was positively related to an AX/Out mode of responding and negativelyrelated to AX/Control. In this Russian sample, therefore, people who are higher on the trait arelikely to show it and may not want to, or may not have adequate mechanisms, to control it. Thiscannot be a firm conclusion, however, as the relationship of Trait Anger and AX/In was .30 andjust missed our criterion for discussion. AX/Out was positively related to both T/Ang-Temperament and T/Ang-Reaction, and T/Ang-Temperament was negatively related toAX/Control. Thus, people who are higher on the likelihood of generally reacting without spe-cific provocation with anger are more likely to express it and less likely to be able to control it.Finally, as might be expected, T/Ang-Temperament and T/Ang-Reaction were significantly andpositively related.

With regard to the modes of anger expression assessed, it can be seen that AX/In andAX/Out, and AX/In and AX/Control show very low interrelationships, suggesting that theyrepresent separate and independent modes for the expression of anger. AX/Out and AX/Controlare negatively and significantly correlated, suggesting that individuals who express their angeroutwardly are not likely to try, or to be able, to control such expression.

DISCUSSION

The present results provide clear support for this version of the Russian STAXI. Each of theindividual scales was found to have good to excellent internal consistency, the factor structurewas equivalent to that found in the American version and similar to what was found in theinitial Russian STAXI (Eckhardt et al., 1995), and the intercorrelations among the scales are asmight be expected. The negative relationship of AX/Out with AX/Control in the current dataset closely matches that found by Spielberger, Krasner, and Soloman (1988), and the smallrelationship (r 5 .22) of AX/In with AX/Out in the current study is not that dissimilar to

Table 6. Relationships Among the Experience and Expression Scales on the Russian STAXI

Anger Experience

Anger Expression

Anger-In Anger-Out Anger-ControlStateAnger

TraitAnger T/Ang Temp

T/AngerReaction

Anger-In .22** .11 .28** .30** .11 .30**

Anger-Out −.52** .27** .56** .46** .36**

Anger-Control −.09 −.42** −.41 −.25**

State Anger .36** .30** .26**

T-Anger Temp .39**

**p < .01.


Spielberger et al. (1988), who noted that the relationship of these two variables is essentiallyzero. We particularly note that when the complete 44 item scale was subjected to factor analysisthe outcome strongly supported the model. Nevertheless, there were some minor quantitativedifferences in mean scores between this version and the initial version, and between Russianand American means. These, we believe, are attributable to issues of reliability or sampling, orto differing levels of facets of the model in the two cultures. However, both the factor replica-tion and the high reliability coefficients provide support for the applicability of Spielberger’s(1988) anger model in Russia and for use of the Russian STAXI with Russian speaking per-sons who reside in America. The results provide an element of support for the universalistposition of emotional experience and expression (Berry et al., 1992), especially with regard toanger.

In the STAXI model, anger experiences are conceived as states or traits, and the state ofbeing angry was originally conceived of as unidimensional. However, reports by Fuqua et al.(1991), Spielberger (1988) and Van der Ploeg (1988) have suggested that there may be twoaspects to the state of anger. The first may involve a simple experience feeling of anger whilethe second is hypothesized as a transient desire to express the feeling. In the initial version ofthe Russian STAXI we also found support for a two-factor model but were unable to inter-pret the factors. In the present data set we again found support for the two factor model, but thistime the factors correspond to the hypothesis noted above. The first part of a state of anger maybe conceived of as a simple experience or an experience without a drive to act (e.g., “I ammad”). The second part is an action tendency towards expression of the feeling (e.g., “I feel likeswearing”). This conception not only supports results found by other investigators, but corre-sponds to our everyday experiences with people who seem to be angry but do not act and are“just grouchy,” as compared with others who seem angry and we know enough to keep ourdistance from them since they seem likely to act on the feeling. Certainly, evidence for thisduality of state anger is mounting and more research will provide additional clarification ofstate anger. With regard to normative scores, the Russian scores from the original and thecurrent samples are lower than reported in the STAXI manual. While true for both sexes, themean differences are especially noteworthy for the men (St. Petersburg University men511.52; current men5 12.00; STAXI manual 15.89; difference5 3.89 to 4.37 points). Ameri-cans, as we noted in Eckhardt et al. (1995), may be more used to “tuning in” to their angerand/or to feeling free to express it on questionnaires. In the present study, men showed signif-icantly more state anger than women. This may reflect a sex difference in anger experiences orin freedom to respond on a questionnaire. However, the absolute difference is small and sexdifferences on State Anger were not found by Eckhardt et al. (1995) or Kopper and Epperson(1991) in an American sample. If this small difference is supported in future studies we will beable to generate macro level, society-wide hypotheses. However, little can be said about thenormative level of experience in a single person.

The analysis of anger as a trait led to support for two subscales, one which reflects angryresponses in the absence of provocations and the other in response to specific triggers. Theitems on these two subscales in the Russian STAXI paralleled those in the American STAXI,and the present results parallel those found by Eckhardt et al. (1995). This adds to our confi-dence in the model. We found only minor differences in overall Trait Anger, T/Ang-Temperament,and T/Ang-Reaction when we compared the current results to those of the St. Petersburg Uni-versity sample. In addition, there were no sex differences on these scales. However, in a largesample of 1010 young American adults Spielberger, Reiheiser, and Sydeman (1995) reportedthat males (M 5 21.46;SD5 5.32) scored significantly higher than females (M 5 20.46;SD55.72) on Trait Anger, and that the difference was due primarily to differences on the T/Ang-Temperament subscale. Again, we note that the sex difference on that scale was only .37 pointsand is unlikely to be meaningful for the individual case.


In summary, the Russian STAXI represents an internally consistent and theoretically soundassessment device for the psychometric measurement of anger in Russian speaking peoples.Increased experience with the STAXI in Russia and other countries of the former USSR, willallow us to better understand the nature of their anger experiences and modes of expression.While we found no differences between the high school and medical school samples, furtherstudies will allow us to understand the development of anger across the lifespan and the dif-ferences in anger in rural areas where there is less education and interaction with the westernworld. Finally, studies which examine the stability of anger experiences and modes of expres-sion across time within individuals and the relationship of anger to disruptive behavioral eventsand to medical problems will contribute to our understanding of these phenomena.

REFERENCES

Averill, J.R. (1982).Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion.New York: Springer–Verlag.

Averill, J.R. (1983). Studies on anger and aggression: Implications for theories of emotion.AmericanPsychologist, 38, 1145–1160.

Berry, J.W., Poortinga, Y., Segall, M., & Dasen, P. (1992).Cross-cultural psychology.New York:Cambridge University Press.

Crane, R.S. (1981). The role of anger, hostility and aggression in essential hypertension. (Doctoraldissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa, 1981).Dissertation Abstracts International, 42,2982B.

Davitz, J.R. (1969).The language of emotions.NY: Academic Press.

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: Erlbaum.

Deffenbacher, J.L. (1995). Ideal treatment package for adults with anger disorders. In H. Kassinove(Ed.),Anger disorders: Definition, diagnosis, and treatment(pp. 151–171). Washington, DC: Taylorand Francis.

DiGiuseppe, R., Tafrate, R.C., & Eckhardt, C.I. (1994). Critical issues in the treatment of anger.Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 1, 111–132.

Eckhardt, C.I., & Kassinove, H. (1995). Articulated irrational thoughts in maritally violent men.Manuscript submitted for publication.

Eckhardt, C.I., Kassinove, H., Sukhodolsky, D.G., & Terracciano, S. (1994).Anger and aggres-sion: A Russian-American cross national study.Poster presented at the Annual Convention of theAmerican Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA.

Eckhardt, C.I., Kassinove, H., Tsytsarev, S.V., & Sukhodolsky, D.G. (1995). A Russian version ofthe State–Trait Anger Expression Inventory: Preliminary data.Journal of Personality Assessment,64, 440–445.

Ellis, A.E. (1977).Anger: How to live with and without it.NY: Citadel Press.

Funkenstein, D.H., King, S.H., & Drolette, M.E. (1954). The direction of anger during a laboratorystress inducing situation.Psychosomatic Medicine, 16, 404–413.

Fuqua, D.R., Leonard, E., Masters, M.A., Smith, R.J., Campbell, J.L., & Fischer, P.C. (1991). Astructural analysis of the State–Trait Anger Expression Inventory.Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 51, 439–445.

Greer, S., & Morris, T. (1975). Psychological attributes of women who develop breast cancer. Acontrolled study.Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 19, 147–153.

Harburg, E.H., Blakelock, E.H., & Roeper, P.J. (1979). Resentful and reflective coping with arbitraryauthority and blood pressure: Detroit.Psychosomatic Medicine, 41, 189–202.

Harburg, E.H., Gleiberman, L., Russell, M., & Cooper, L. (1991). Anger coping styles and bloodpressure in black and white males: Buffalo, NY.Psychosomatic Medicine, 53, 153–164.


Hanin, Y., & Spielberger, C.D. (1983). The development and validation of the Russian Form of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory.Series in Clinical and Community Psychology: Stress and Anxiety, 2, 15–26.

Hathaway, S.R., & McKinley, J.C. (1943).Manual for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inven-tory (rev. ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Julius, S., Schneider, R., & Egan, B. (1985). Suppressed anger in hypertension: Facts and problems.In M.A. Chesney & R.H. Rosenman (Eds.),Anger and hostility in cardiovascular and behavioraldisorders(pp. 127–137). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Kalis, B., Harris, R., Bennett, C., & Sokolow, M. (1961). Personality and life history factors inpersons who are potentially hypertensive.Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 132, 457–468.

Kassinove, H., & Eckhardt, C.I. (1994). Irrational beliefs and self-reported affect in Russia andAmerica.Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 133–142.

Kassinove, H., & Sukhodolsky, D.G. (1995a). Anger disorders: Basic science and practice issues. InH. Kassinove (Ed.),Anger disorders: Definition, diagnosis, and treatment(pp. 1–26). Washington,DC: Taylor and Francis.

Kassinove, H., & Sukhodolsky, D.G. (August, 1995b).Psychometric and contructivist anger mea-surement in Russia and America.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psycholog-ical Association, New York, NY.

Kassinove, H., & Sukhodolsky, D.G. (1995c). Optimism, pessimism, and worry in Russian and Amer-ican children and adolescents.Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 157–168.

Knight, R.G., Chisholm, B.J., Paulin, J.M., & Waal–Manning, H.J. (1988). The Spielberger AngerExpression Scale: Some psychometric data.British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27, 279–281.

Kopper, B.A., & Epperson, D.L. (1991). Women and anger: Sex and sex-role comparisons in theexpression of anger.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 7–14.

1990 Census of Population and Housing.(Summary tape, File 3c). Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofCommerce [Bureau of the Census].

Russell, J.A. (1991). Culture and categorization of emotions.Psychological Bulletin, 110, 426–450.

Siegman, A.W. (1994). From Type A to hostility to anger: Reflections on the history of coronary pronebehavior. In A.W. Siegman & T.W. Smith (1994) (Eds.),Anger, hostility and the heart(pp. 1–22).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Snell, W.E., Gum, S., Schuck, J.A., Mosley, J.A., & Hite, T. (1995). The Clinical Anger Scale:preliminary reliability and validity.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 215–226.

Spielberger, C.D. (1988).Professional Manual for the State–Trait Anger Expression Inventory.Odessa,FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Spielberger, C.D., Crane, R.S., Kearnes, W.D., Pellegrin, K.L., & Rickman, R.L. (1991). Angerand anxiety in essential hypertension. In C.D. Spielberger, I.G. Sarason, Z. Kulcsar, & G.L. VanHeck, (Eds.),Stress and emotion: Anxiety, anger, and curiosity(pp. 265–279). New York: Hemi-sphere (Taylor & Francis).

Spielberger, C.D., Krasner, S.S., & Soloman, E.P. (1988). The experience, expression and control ofanger. In M.P. Janisse (Ed.),Health psychology: Individual differences and stress(pp. 89–108). NewYork: Springer–Verlag.

Spielberger, C.D., Reheiser, E.C., & Sydeman, S.J. (1995). Measuring the experience, expression andcontrol of anger. In H. Kassinove (Ed.),Anger disorders: Definition, diagnosis, and treatment(pp.49–65). Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis.

Sukhodolsky, D.G., Tsytsarev, S.V., & Kassinove, H. (1995). Behavior therapy in Russia.Journal ofBehavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 26, 83–91.

Van der Ploeg, H.M. (1988). The factor structure of the State–Trait Anger Scale.Psychological Reports,63, 978.

Westberry, L.G. (1980).Concurrent validation of the Trait Anger Scale and its correlation with otherpersonality measures.Unpublished master’s thesis. University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.

Wechsler, D. (1955).Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale.New York: The PsychologicalCorporation.


development of a russian state–trait anger expression inventory

Documents