This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]On: 06 December 2013, At: 03:40Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Personality AssessmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20

Factor Structure of the State-Trait AngerExpression InventoryDonald G. Forgays , Deborah Kirby Forgays & Charles D. SpielbergerPublished online: 10 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Donald G. Forgays , Deborah Kirby Forgays & Charles D. Spielberger (1997) FactorStructure of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory, Journal of Personality Assessment, 69:3,497-507, DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6903_5

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6903_5

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions andviews expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are notthe views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not berelied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylorand Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 1997,69(3), 497-507 Copyright O 1997, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

ARTICLES

Factor Structure of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory

Donald G. Forgays and Deborah Kirby Forgays Department ofPsychology

University of Western Washington

Charles D. Spielbelrger Department of Psychology University of South Florida

The assessment of anger has received increased attention because of growing evi- dence that anger and hostility are related to heart disease. Research on anger assessment has also been stimulated by the development of psychometric measures for evaluating different facets of anger, such as the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI). In this study, factor analyses qf the responses of a large sample of university students to the 44 STAXI items identified 7 factors. Of these, the first 6 factors closely corresponded with the 6 STAXI scales and subscales: State Anger (S-Anger); Trait Anger Temperament and Reaction, and Anger-In, Anger-Out, and Anger-Control. All 10 STAXI S-Anger items had salient loadings on the 1st factor for both sexes; the 7th factor also consisted primarily of S-Anger items. Factor analyses of responses to the 10 S-Anger items clearly confirmed two S-Anger factors for both sexes: Feeling Angry (e.g., "I am furious") and Feel Like Expressing Anger (e.g., "I feel like hitting someone").

The measurement of anger and hostility has received increasing attention since the Type-A behavior pattern was identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974), and subsequently shown to be a major risk factor for coronary h e m disease (Review Panel on Coronary-Prone Behavior, 198 1). Dembroski and Costa (1987), Spielber- ger and London (1982), and Williams (1989) and his colleagues (Barefoot, Dahlstrom, &Williams, 1983; Williams et al., 1988; Williams et al., 1980)reported substantial evidence that anger and hostility are the most lethal components of the Type-A behavior pattern in relation to cardiovascular disorders.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

03:

40 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2013

Extensive research on anger, conceptually closely related to hostility, has been stimulated by the development of multidimensional self-report psychometric scales, such as the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI). In responding to the 44-item STAXI, which is comprised of five scales and two subscales (Spielberger, 1988; Spielberger & Sydeman, 1994), individuals report the intensity of anger as an emotional state and how often they experience angry feelings (Spielberger, Jacobs, Russell, & Crane, 1983). They also rate the frequency of three facets of anger expression (Spielberger, Krasner, & Solomon, 1988): (a) anger expressed toward other persons or objects in the environment, (b) anger that is experienced but held in (suppressed), and (c) how frequently a person endeavors to control angry feelings.

The intensity of angry feelings experienced "right now, at this moment," or at a designated time, are assessed with the STAXI State Anger (S-Anger) scale. Individual differences in the disposition to experience anger are measured by the STAXI Trait Anger (T-Anger) Scale. The STAXI AXfOut, A X h , and AXICon scales assess how often anger is expressed toward other persons or environmental objects (anger-out), experienced but suppressed (anger-in), or controlled (anger- control; Spielberger et al., 1988; Spielberger & Sydeman, 1994).

The STAXI scales were developed in two stages. Considerable research was initially devoted to constructing the 10-item S-Anger and T-Anger measures, which together formed the State-Trait Anger Scale (STAS). Studies of the factor structure of the 20-item STAS have consistently identified separate underlying state and trait anger factors (Spielberger et al., 1983). Alpha coefficients for the 10-item STAXI S-Anger scale were .90 or higher for both undergraduate university students and Navy recruits (Westberry, 1980), indicating a high degree of internal consis- tency for the $-Anger Scale (Spielberger, 1988).

Factor analyses of the 10 STAXI T-Anger items have consistently ideatified two correlated factors (Spielberger, 1988; Spielberger et al., 1983): Angry-Tem- perament (T-Anger~T) and Angry-Reaction (T-Angerm). The T-Angerm subscale measures individual differences in the disposition to experience angry feelings w iX~u t provwa$ion; the T-Angerm subscale measures how often a person feels mg~y when unfairly criticized or otherwise treated unjustly or badly (Spiel- berger et al., 1988). Alpha coefficients for the T-Anger ecale and T-Angerm subscale ranged between .82 and 89. Although the alphas for the Citem T-AngerIR scale werq only -70, this is satisfactory for a 4-item scale.

m e second stage in the development of the STAXI was based on recognizing the naed to disti~guish between the experience of anger and how angry feelings are exprapse;d (Spialb6rger et al., 1985), which led to the construction of the 24-item Anger Elepresffion (AX) Scale (Spielberger et al., 1988). Studies of the factor structure of the AX Soalehave consistently identified three robust factors: Anger- Out, Anget-In, and Anger-Control. Items with high loadings on each of these factors were selected to fqirm $-item AWOut, AX/ln, and AXICon scales.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

03:

40 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2013

STAXI FACTOR STRUCTURE 499

A number of psychometric studies have confirmed the factor structures of the STAS and the AX Scale, which were subsequently combined to form the STAXI (Spielberger, 1988), but the dimensional integrity of the newly integrated 44-item STAXI was not evaluated. This was first done by Fuqua et al. (1991), who administered the STAXI to 455 undergraduate students at a large Southwestern university. Fuqua et al. factored students' responses to the entire set of 44 STAXI items and reported the findings for their total sample; separate analyses for men and women were not published. The seven-factor solution with varimax rotation was considered to provide the best fit; the first four factors corresponded quite well with the STAXI S-Anger, AXJCon, A w n , and AXIOut scales; Factors 5 and 6 corresponded with the STAXI T-AngertT and T-,4nger/R subscales.

Although all 10 STAXI S-Anger items had salient loadings (.30 or higher) on Fuqua et al.'s first factor, Factor 7 was also definedl by three S- Anger items, which had their highest loadings on this factor and secondary salient loadings on Factor 1. The content of all three items described the physical expression of angry feelings (e.g., feel like breaking things, banging on the table, hitting someone). Although Factor 7 accounted for only 1.7% of the total matrix variance, this small factor persisted even when only 5 or 6 factors were rotated.

Evidence of two S-Anger factors was previously reported by van der Ploeg (1988) in a study in which a 10-item Dutch adaptation of the STAS was adminis- tered to Dutch male draftees (van der Ploeg, Defares, & Spielberger, 198%). Van der Ploeg's first factor consisted of items describing angry feelings (e.g., feel angry, furious, annoyed). His second S-Anger factor, which he la~beled State Anger Expression, was defined by two of the three iteqs with salient loadings on Fuqua et al.'s (1991) Factor 7 (feel like breaking things, feel like hitting someone), plus two additional items that described the verbal expression of angry feelings (feel like yelling, feel like swearing). Thus, in contrast to simply experiencing angry feelings, "feel like" expressing anger appears to be the hallmark of van der Ploeg's second S-Anger factor and Fuqua et a1,'s Factor 7.

It should be noted that van der Ploeg's factor analysis of the. 10 S-Anger items was based entirely on the responses of male respondents, whereas Fuqua et al. (1991) faqtored the responses of university students to all 44 STAXI items, but did not take gender into account. This study reports t!he results of factor analyses of responses to all 44 STAXI items for a large sample of undergraduate students at the University of Vermont, taking possible gender differences into account. The factor structure of the 10 STAXI S-Anger items was also examined in separate analyses for men and women.

METHOD

The participants in this study were 714 undergraduate students (444 women, 270 men) enrolled in General Psychology at the University of Vermont during 1989

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

03:

40 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2013

500 FORGAYS, FORGAYS, SPIELBERGER

and 1990. They were recruited for a project in which the relations between personality and health-injurious behaviors, including cigarette smoking and alcohol use, were examined. The average age of the students was 19.3 years.

The students were informed that the study was investigating individual differ- ences in health-related behaviors. They were tested outside of class time in groups ranging from 20 to 50 students. Each student completed the STAXI, along with several additional questionnaires, and received points toward their final course grade for participating in the study.

RESULTS

The responses of the male and female participants to the 44 STAXI items were factored in separate principal-components analyses. Because the goals of this study were to examine possible gender-related differences in the factor structure bf the STAXI, and Fuqua et al. (1991) had not taken gender into account, exploratory factor analyses were carried out, rather than confirmatory analyses, because such analyses were judged to be more conservative (Gorsuch, 1988). Nine Eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were found for the female sample and 10 for the male sample. However, examination of the scree plots and the percentage of variance accounted for suggested that the six- and seven-factor solutions with varimax rotation pro- vided the best and most meaningful fit.

To compare our findings with those reported by Fuqua et al. (1991), the six- and seven-factor solutions are reported for both sexes. The six-factor solutiops are presented in Table 1; the seven-factor solutions are reported in Table 2. As displayed in these tables, a good deal of similarity can be seen in the structure of the first six factors, along with interesting differences in Factor 7.

In the six- and seven-factor solutions, S-Anger was the first factor extracted for both men and women, accounting far 22% to 24% of the total variance. The second factor extracted for both sexes was T-Angerm; the four STAXI T-Angerm items all had their highest loadings on this factor. In all four analyses, Anger-Control was the third extracted factor, Anger-In the fourth, and Anger-Out the fifth. For the female respondents, however, two Anger-In items (secretly critical; pout or sulk) had their highest loadings on the Anger-Out factor rather than on Anger-In. In both the six- and seven-factor solutions, Factor 6 was defined entirely by the four T-AngerJR items for both men and women.

Although the first six factors in the six and seven-factor solutions were similar for men and women, the conceptual meaning of Factor 7 appears to be quite different for men and women. For men, Factor 7 was difficult to interpret, consisting of items with salient loadings drawn from five of the six STAXI scales. In contrast, for the women, Factor 7 consisted of four S-Anger items; of these, three items had higher loadings on Factor 7 thm on Factor 1. Item 19 from the T-Anger/T Scale

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

03:

40 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2013

TABLE 1 Factor Structure of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory Measure

F-I F-2 F-3 F 4 F-5 F-6 ---

F M F M F M F M F M F M

4 Feel - yelling 5 Feel -breaking 8 Feel -hitting 6 Mad 3 Angry 7 Peel -banging 1 Furious

10 Feel - swearing 9 Burned up 2 Initated

12 Fiery temper 13 Hotheaded 11 Quick-temper 42 Lose - ternpet 16 Fly - handle 19 Feel - hit - frus 17 Say nasty 28 Keep cool 3 1 Control behavior 40 Tolerant 21 Control temper 38 Calm down 24 Patient wl others 44 Control angry 35 Stop temper 23 Keep in 30 Boil inside 37 Angrier admit 26 Withdraw from 41 Irritated more 33 Hold grudges 36 Secretly critical 25 Pout/sulli 39 Say nasty 27 Be sarcastic 32 Argue wl others 29 Slam doors 34. Strike out 22 Express anger 43 Tell others 20 Infuriated wl evaluation 15 Annoyed wl no reason 18 Furious wl criticism 14 Angry - slowed % variance Eigenvalue

Note. Six factor solutions for 444 female and 270 male university students were used. Kaiser's Mean Sampling Adequacy measure is 0.90 for the female analysis and 0.89 for the male analysis. F =female; M =male.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

03:

40 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2013

TABLE 2 Seven Factor Solutions for the StateTrait Anger Expression Inventory Measure for the

Same Samples of Female and Male Students

F-I F-2 F-3 F-4 F-5 F-6 F-7 ----- F M F M F M F M F M F M F M

3 Angry 6 Mad 1 Furious 4 Feel - yelling

10 Feel - swearing 2 Imitated 9 Burned up 5 Feel breaking 8 Feel - hitting 7 Feel -banging

12 Aery temper 13 Hotheaded 11 Quick-temper 42 Lose - temper 16 Fly - handle 19 Feel - hit - ~IUS

17 Say nasty 28 Keep cool 3 1 Control behavior 40 Tolerant 21 Control temper 38 Calm down 24 Patient wl others 44 Control angry 35 Stop temper 23 Keep in 30 Boil inside 37 Angrier admit 26 Withdraw from 41 Irritated more 33 Hold grudges 36 Secretly critical 25 Fout/sulk 39 Say nasty 27 Be sarcastic 32 Argue wl others 29 Slam doors 34 Strike out 22 Express anger 43 Tell others 20 Infuriated wl evaluation 15 Annoyed wl no reason 18 Furious wl criticism 14 Angry - slowed % variance Eigenvalue

- -

Note. The Kaiser Mean Sampling Adequacy remains the same.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

03:

40 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2013

("When I get frustrated, I feel like hitting someone") also had its highest loading for women on Factor 7. The content of all five of these items involved "feel like" expressing anger. Thus, Factor 7 for women in this study was quite similar to Fuqua et al.'s (1991) Factor 7 and van der Ploeg's second S-Anger factor.

The emergence of a second S-Anger factor for women in the seven-factor solution of this study, along with the findings in previous research, provide strong evidence that the STAXI S-Anger Scale is not unidimensional. Therefbre, to examine more closely the substructure of the S-Anger Factor, the 10 S-Anger items were factored in separate principal-components analyses for each gender. The results of the two-factor solutions with varimax rotation, which were judged to best fit the data for both men and women, are reported in Table 3. Findings based on similar analyses of the S-Anger items by Fuqua et al. (1991) are also reported in this table (D. R. Fuqua, personal communication, April, 29, 1993).

As may be noted in Table 3, the content of the STAXI S-Anger items with high loadings in this study for both men and women on the Feel Angry factor (angry, furious, mad, irritated) refer primarily to the experience of angry feelings, whereas the content of all five items with highest loadings on the Feel like Expressing Anger factor are related to the expression of angry feelings. "Feel like yelling" had dual loadings for both sexes, and "swearing" had dual loadings for th~e women. "Burned up" was the only item with loadings on different factors in both studies. It may be

TABLE 3 Factor Loadings of the 10 State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory S-Anger Items for

Male and Female Students at the University of Vermont Compared With Similar Data for Oklahoma State University Students -

University of Vermont Oklahoma State University

Feel Like Feel Like Expressing Ewpressing

Feel Angry Anger Feel Angry Anger - S-Anger Items Male

I feel angry I am furious I feel irritated I am mad I am burned up Feel like hitting Feel like breaking Feel like banging Feel like yelling Feel like swearing % variance Eigenvalue

Female

.84 3 2 .74 .73

.6 1

11.95 1.20

Male

.85

.84

.80

.6 1

.53 9.35 0.93

Female Male

.81

.74

.73

.8D

.68

.43 9.50 0.95

Male Female

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

03:

40 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2013

504 FORGAYS, FORGAYS, SPIELBERGER

noted in Table 3 that Fuqua et al.'s (1991) results match quite well with those of this study.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The principal goal of this study was to evaluate the factor structure of the STAXI to determine the extent to which the structural properties of this inventory corre- sponded with the theoretical constructs on which the STAXI scales and subscales were based. A second goal was to verify that the items comprising each of the STAXI scales had salient loadings on the appropriate factors. Results of the factor analyses of responses to the 44 STAXI items confirmed the assumed structural properties of the inventory and provided evidence of two distinctive S-Anger factors: Feeling Angry and Feeling Like Expressing Anger. In addition, several provocative new findings help to clarify what is measured by the STAXI scales and raise interesting questions in regard to how men and women may differ in the experience and expression of anger.

The first factor extracted in the six- and seven-factor solutions for both sexes was S-Anger. All 10 S-Anger items had high loadings on this factor (median loading = .78), which accounted for the largest percentage of the variance for both men and women. The strength of the S-Anger factor may be due, in part, to method variance resulting from the fact that the S-Anger items are similar in format, are presented as a unit with the same instructions, and are encountered first by respondents to the STAXI. Consequently, in responding to the S-Anger items, respondents may develop a persistent set that contributes to the consistency of their responses to these items.

In the six-factor solutions, the S-Anger factor appeared to be unidimensional; this was also true for men in the seven-factor solution. For the women, however, four S-Anger items coalesced to form a seventh factor, which was comprised primarily of S-Anger items with strong loadings on this factor and secondary loadings on Factor 1. In separate analyses of the 10 S-Anger items, two S-Anger factors that were similar for men and women were identified. Feeling Angry items loaded on one of these factors; Feel Like Expressing Anger items loaded on the second factor. Patterns of item loadings similar to those obtained in this study were also found in the factors that emerged in Fuqua et al.'s (1991) analyses of the STAXI S-Anger items, as can be noted in Table 3, and in the two S-Anger factors identified by van der Ploeg (1988).

Feel Like Expressing Anger items defined a separate seventh factor for the female respondents in this study, providing further evidence of the distinctiveness of this aspect of S-Anger for women. The seventh factor in Fuqua et al.'s (1991) mixed-gender analysis was also comprised entirely of Feel Like Expressing Anger items. Because 62% of the respondents in Fuqua's sample were women, this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

03:

40 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2013

disproportionality probably contributed to the similarity of his Factor 7 to the seventh factor that was found for women in this study. These findings suggest that the physical expression of anger represents a more distinctive and significant decision for women than for men.

In the six- and seven-factor solutions of this study, six of the eight STAXI T-Anger items had salient loadings on Factor 2, including all fom T-Anger/T items (1 1, 12, 13, 16), which had very high loadings (.69 or higher; median = .78) for both genders. Although the other two T-Anger iterns (17,19) with salient loadings on Factor 2 for both sexes are not scored on either subscale of this dimension, Item 17 had higher loadings for both sexes on the T-AngerfT factor in a previous factor analysis of the 10 T-Anger items, and Item 19 had a higher loading on Angry Temperament for men (Spielberger, 1988, Table 7, p. 8).

Factor 6 is clearly and unequivocally a T-AngerIR factor. All four STAXI T-AngerIT subscale items had their highest loadings on this factor for both sexes, and only Item 14 (Angry when slowed) had any secondary loadings. Item 42 ("When furious, I lose my temper"), which is scored on the STAXI AXlOut Scale, is the only "misplaced" item, with high loadings on Factor 2 for both sexes. This finding is understandable, however, when one notes that all four T-AngeriT items that had high loadings on Factor 2 explicitly refer to temper or its manifestations (fiery temper, quick temper, hot headed, fly off the. Ihandle). Thus, the results of this study provide stdung confirmation of the unique structure of the Angry Tempera- ment and Angry Reaction subscales, and dso provide support for the integrity of the STAXI T-Anger dimension.

All eight items that comprise the STAXI AXKon scale had high loadings on Factor 3 in the six- and seven-factor solutions, which was essentially the same for both sexes. Furthermore, none of the S T M I AUCon items had salient laladings on any other factor, providing strong verification of the underlying factor structure for the AXICon Scale. Factor 4 provides a similar strong verification for the soundness of the AXnn scale, especially for the male respondents. All eight AX/In items had salient loadings on Factor 4 for men; six of these items also had salient loadings on this factor for the women. Two STAX A X h items, which seem to reflect the passive--aggressive expressioe of angry feelings (secretly critical; pout or sulk), had their highest loadings on Factor 5 (Anger-Out) for the wamen.

Of the eight items comprising the STAXI AWOut scale, four items (27,32,34, 39) had salient loadings on Factor 5 for both sexes. Items 22 and 43 (express my anger, tell others off) had their highest loadings on Factor 5 for men, and Item 29 (slam doors) had its highest loading on this factor for women. In contrast, Items 22 and 43 had strong negative loadings on Factor 4 (Anger-In) for women, and Item 29 loaded on Factor 2 (Angry Temperament) for men. Ii is interesting to note that Items 25 and 36 (pout or sulk; secretly critic~l), which had then highest loadings on Factor 5 (Anger-Out) for women, had high loadings on Factor 4 (Anger-In) for men.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

03:

40 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2013

506 FORGAYS, FORGAYS, SPIELBERGER

Comparison of the findings of this study with those of Fuqua et al. (1991) revealed a number of similarities and some differences. Because Fuqua et al. combined the two genders in their factor analysis of the 44 STAXI items and important gender differences in factor structure were found in this study, complete comparability should not be expected. Nevertheless, the seven-factor solutions provided the best fit of the data, and S-Anger factors were the first to be extracted in both studies. Although the extraction order for the other six factors differed in the two studies, separate factors were found in both studies for Anger-Control, Anger-In, T-AngerIT, T-AngerfR, and, to some extent, Anger-Out. Two S-Anger factors were also found in both studies.

The findings of this study are consistent with a substantial body of literature on health and hostility (Greenglass, 1987; McCann, Woolfolk, Lehrer, & Schwarz, 1987), and provide evidence that the STAXI is a gender-sensitive measure of the anger and hostility constructs so needed in this area of research. Although verifi- cation and explanation of these interesting gender differences will require further research, men and women appear to differ in both their experience of anger and in their expression of angry feelings.

In summary, the analyses reported in this study substantially verified the factor structure for five of six STAXI scales. The T-Anger dimension was also essentially confirmed, along with evidence that this dimension is comprised of two distinctive components, Angry Temperament and Angry Reaction, which are assessed by the T-Anger subscales. Consequently, consideration should be given to scoring the T-Anger dimension in terms of its two subscales, as Fuqua et al. (1991) recom- mended. The finding of two S-Anger factors, Feeling Angry and Fed Like Exprsssing Anger, and gender differences in the Anger-In and Anger-Out factors are also deserving of further investigation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We wish to note the major contribution of Donald G. Forgays to this article. His untimely death in June 1993 robs us of a valued mentor and colleague. We miss his wit, wisdom, and dedication in the pursuit of science.

REFERENCES

Barefoot, J. C., Dahlstrom, W. G., L Williams, R. B. (1983). Hostility, CHD incidence, and total mortality: A 25-year follow-up study of 255 physicians. Psychosomatic Medicihe, 45, 5 9 4 3 .

Dembroski, T. M., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Coronary-prone behavior: Components of the Type A pattern and hostility. Journal of Personality, 55, 211-236.

Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R. H. (1974). Type A behavior and your heart. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

03:

40 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2013

STAXI FACTOR STRUCTURE 507

Fuqua, D. R., Leonard, E., Masters, M. A., Smith, R. J., Campbell, J. L., c$ Rscher, P. C. (1991). A structural analysis of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory. Wucatronal and Psychological Measurement, 51 ,43946 .

Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Exploratory factor analysis. In J. R. Nesselroade & R. B. Cattell (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed., pp. 231-258). New York: Plenum.

Greenglass, E. (1987). Anger in Type A women: Implications for coronary heart disease. Personality and Individual Di#erences, 8,639-650.

McCann, B., Woolfolk, R., Lehrer, P., & Schwarz, L. (1987). Gender differences in the relationship between hostility and the Type ABehavior Pattern. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 51,355-366.

Review Panel on Coronary-Prone Behavior and Coronary Heart Disease. (1981). Coronary-prone behavior and coronary heart disease: A critical review. Circulation, 63, 1199-1215.

Spielberger, C. D. (1988). Professional Manual for the State-Truit Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI) (research ed.). Odessa, FX: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Spielberger, C. D., Jacobs, G. H., Russell, S. F., & Crane, R. S. (1983). Assessment of anger: The State-Trait Anger Scale. In J. N. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 2, pp. 159-187). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Spielberger, C. D., Johnson, E. G., Russell, S. F., Crane, R. S., Jacobs, G. A., & Worden, T. J. (1985). The experience and expression of anger. In M. A. Chesney & R. H. Rosenman (Eds.), Anger and hostility in cardiovascular and behavioral disorders (pp. 5-29). New York: Hemisphere/McGraw- Hill.

Spielberger, C. D., Krasner, S. S., & Solomon, E. P. (1988). The experience, expression and control of anger. In M. P. Janisse (Ed.), Health psychology: Individual drfferences and stress (pp. 89-108). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Spielberger, C. D., &London, P. (1982). Rage boomerangs. American Health, 1, 52-56. Spielberger, C. D., & Sydeman, S. J. (1994). StateTrait Anxiety Inventory and State-Trait Anger

Expiessiou Inventory. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use ofpsychological testLv for treatmentplanning and outcome assessment @p. 292-321). Hiusdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

van der Ploeg, H. M. (1988). The factor structure of the State-Trait Anger Scale. Psychological Reports, 61, 978.

van der Ploeg, H. M., Defares, P. B., & Spielberger, C. D. (1982). Manual ojthe Dutch State-Trait Anger Scale $elf-analysis Questionnaire. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Westberry, L. G. (1980). Concurrent validation of the Trait-Anger Scale and its correlation with other personality measures. Unpublished master's thesis, University of South Florida.

Williams, R. (1989). The trusting heart: Great news about Type A behavior. New York: Times Books. Williams, R. B., Barefoot, J. C., Haney, T. L., Harrell, F. E., Blumenthal, J. A., Pryor, D. B., &Peterson,

B. (1988). Type A behavior and agiographically documented coronary ath~,rosclerosis in a sample of 2,289 patients. Psychosomatic Medicine, 50, 139-152.

Williams, R. B., Haney, T. L., Lee, K. L., Kong, Y., Blumenthad, J. A., & Whden, R. (1980). Type A behavior, hostility, and coronary atherosclerosis. Psychosomatic Medicine, 42, 539-549.

Deborah K. Forgays Department of Psychology Western Washington University Bellingham, WA 98225

Received November 1 1,1996

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

03:

40 0

6 D

ecem

ber

2013