psychometric report anger profilehr.psychtests.com/archprofile/stats/anger.pdf · 5. anger in...

PsychTests.com advancing psychology and technology

tel 514.745.8272 fax 514.745.6242 CP Normandie PO Box 26067 l Montreal, Quebec l H3M 3E8 [email protected]

PPssyycchhoommeettrriicc RReeppoorrtt

AAnnggeerr PPrrooffiillee

Copyright Plumeus Inc. 2003 2

Psychometrics Report for the

Anger Test Description:

A test assessing anger in 12 different situations. Low scores indicate low levels of anger, high scores indicate high levels. The test yields an overall score and scores for anger in the following subscales:

1. Angry behavior: Measures extent of angry behavior in response to a variety of situations. 2. Angry emotions: Measures extent of angry emotions in response to a variety of situations. 3. Anger in highly emotionally loaded situations: Measures how angry the test-taker gets in

situations involving strong emotions. 4. Anger in moderate emotionally loaded situations: Measures how angry the test-taker gets in

situations involving moderately strong emotions. 5. Anger in benign situations: Measures how angry the test-taker gets in situations where strong

angry reactions are not usually expected. 6. Anger in situations with long-term consequences: Evaluates how angry the individual gets in

situations with long-term consequences. 7. Anger in situations with short-term consequences: Evaluates how angry the individual gets in

situations with only short-term consequences.

Reference: Jerabek, I. (2001). Anger Test Sample Size: 72924 Sample Description: The sample used in this study was randomly selected from a pool of nearly one hundred and fifty thousand participants. It includes men and women, aged 10 to 80, who took the test on Queendom.com website. Number of questions: 36


Descriptive Statistics See Annex 1 for Descriptive statistics


Distribution for the Anger Profile The distribution of the scores is shown in red; the normal curve is represented by the black line plotted over it. The scores are displayed on the x-axis. The y-axis corresponds to the number of respondents who fall into the relevant score range.

Overall anger score

100.090.0

80.070.0

60.050.0

40.030.0

20.010.0

0.0

Overall anger score

Freq

uenc

y

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

Std. Dev = 15.32

Mean = 55.3

N = 72924.00


Angry emotions

100.090.0

80.070.0

60.050.0

40.030.0

20.010.0

0.0

Angry emotions

Fre

quen

cy

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

Std. Dev = 16.19

Mean = 53.6

N = 72924.00

Angry behavior

100.090.0

80.070.0

60.050.0

40.030.0

20.010.0

0.0

Angry behavior

Fre

quen

cy

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

Std. Dev = 16.03

Mean = 40.7

N = 72924.00


Anger in heavily emotionally loaded situations

100.090.0

80.070.0

60.050.0

40.030.0

20.010.0

0.0


Freq

uenc

y

20000

10000

0

Std. Dev = 15.12

Mean = 71.1

N = 72924.00

Anger in moderately emotionally loaded situations

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0


Fre

quen

cy

20000

10000

0

Std. Dev = 18.16

Mean = 52.6

N = 72924.00


Anger in benign situations

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0


Fre

quen

cy

20000

10000

0

Std. Dev = 19.42

Mean = 42.2

N = 72924.00

Anger in situations with long-term consequences

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0


Fre

quen

cy

30000

20000

10000

0

Std. Dev = 14.13

Mean = 65.2

N = 72924.00


Anger in situations with short-term consequences

100.090.0

80.070.0

60.050.0

40.030.0

20.010.0

0.0


Freq

uenc

y

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

Std. Dev = 18.98

Mean = 45.4

N = 72924.00


Reliability and Internal Consistency Inter-Item Consistency Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha: 0.8942 Split-Half Reliability Correlation between forms: 0.7703 Spearman-Brown formula : 0.8702 Guttman’s formula: 0.8684


Criterion and Construct Validity 1. Relationship between subjects being told that they have an anger problem and scores on the anger profile: Question #1: Have you ever been told that you have an anger problem? Yes, on a regular basis Yes, occasionally Yes, a couple of times Yes, once Never a) General Score: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects who had been told with varying frequencies that they had a problem with anger. As frequency of being told that they have an anger problem decreases, score on the anger profile decreases as well. The effects are very robust. See Annex 2 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,51384) = 1962.647 p < 0.0001

OVERALL SCORE AS A FUNCTION Of SUBJECTS BEING TOLD THAT THEY HAD AN ANGER PROBLEM

Have you been told that you have an anger problem?

Never

Yes, once

Yes, a couple of tim

Yes, occasionally

Yes, regularly

Mea

n of

Ove

rall

ange

r sc

ore

70

60

50

40


b) Angry behavior: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects who had been told with varying frequencies that they had a problem with anger. As frequency of being told that they have an anger problem decreases, score on angry behavior decreases as well. The effects are very robust. See Annex 2 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,.51384) = 2144.906 p < 0.0001

ANGRY BEHAVIOR SCORE AS A FUNCTION OF SUBJECTS BEING TOLD THAT THEY HAD AN ANGER PROBLEM


Never

Yes, once


Yes, occasionally

Yes, regularly

Mea

n of

Ang

ry b

ehav

ior

60

50

40

30


c) Angry emotions: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects who had been told with varying frequencies that they had a problem with anger. As frequency of being told that they have an anger problem decreases, score on angry emotions decreases as well. The effects are very robust. See Annex 2 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,51384) = 1793.041 p < 0.0001

ANGRY EMOTIONS SCORE AS A FUNCTION OF SUBJECTS BEING TOLD THAT THEY HAD AN ANGER PROBLEM


Never

Yes, once


Yes, occasionally

Yes, regularly

Mea

n of

Ang

ry e

mot

ions

70

60

50

40


d) Anger in highly emotionally loaded situations: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects who had been told with varying frequencies that they had a problem with anger. As frequency of being told that they have an anger problem decreases, score on the anger in highly emotionally loaded situations decreases as well. The effects are very robust. See Annex 2 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,51384) = 1262.068 p < 0.0001 ANGER IN HIGHLY EMOTIONALLY LOADED SITUATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF BEING TOLD THAT

THEY HAD AN ANGER PROBLEM


NeverYes, onceYes, a couple of timYes, occasionallyYes, regularly

Mea

n of

Ang

er in

hea

vily

em

otio

nally

load

ed s

ituat

ions

82

80

78

76

74

72

70

68

66

64


e) Anger in moderately emotionally loaded situations: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects who had been told with varying frequencies that they had a problem with anger. As frequency of being told that they have an anger problem decreases, score on the anger in moderately emotionally loaded situations subscale decreases as well. The effects are very robust. See Annex 2 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,51384) = 1558.707 p > 0.0001 ANGER IN MODERATELY EMOTIONALLY LOADED SITUATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF SUBJECTS

BEING TOLD THAT THEY HAD AN ANGER PROBLEM


NeverYes, onceYes, a couple of timYes, occasionallyYes, regularly

Mea

n of

Ang

er in

mod

erat

ely

emot

iona

lly lo

aded

situ

atio

ns

70

60

50

40


f) Anger in benign situations: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects who had been told with varying frequencies that they had a problem with anger. As frequency of being told that they have an anger problem decreases, score on the Anger in benign situations subscale decreases as well. The effects are very robust. See Annex 2 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,51384) = 1489.012 p < 0.0001

ANGER IN BENIGN SITUATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF BEING TOLD THAT THEY HAD AN ANGER PROBLEM


Never

Yes, once


Yes, occasionally

Yes, regularly

Mea

n of

Ang

er in

ben

ign

situ

atio

ns

60

50

40

30


g) Anger in situations with long-term consequences: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects who had been told with varying frequencies that they had a problem with anger. As frequency of being told that they have an anger problem decreases, score on the Anger in situations with long-term consequences subscale decreases as well. The effects are very robust. See Annex 2 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,51384) = 1494.424 p < 0.0001

SCORE ON ANGER IN SITUATIONS WITH SHORT-TERM CONSEQUENCES AS A FUNCTION OF SUBJECTS BEING TOLD THAT THEY HAD AN ANGER PROBLEM


Never

Yes, once


Yes, occasionally

Yes, regularly

Mea

n of

Ang

er in

sit.

w/ l

ong-

term

con

sequ

ence

s 76

74

72

70

68

66

64

62

60

58


i) Anger in situations with short-term consequences: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects who had been told with varying frequencies that they had a problem with anger. As frequency of being told that they have an anger problem decreases, score on anger in situations with short-term consequences decreases as well. The effects are very robust. See Annex 2 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,51384) = 1756.971 p < 0.0001

SCORE ON ANGER IN SITUATIONS WITH SHORT-TERM CONSEQUENCES AS A FUNCTION OF SUBJECTS BEING TOLD THAT THEY HAD AN ANGER PROBLEM


Never

Yes, once


Yes, occasionally

Yes, regularly

Mea

n of

Ang

er in

sit.

w/ s

hort

-ter

m c

onse

quen

ces 70

60

50

40

30


2. Relationship between thinking about seeing a professional about anger and score on the Anger Profile. Question #2: Have you ever considered seeing a professional about your anger? Yes, I am currently seeing someone. Yes, I have seen someone in the past Yes, I have considered it. No, but people close to me have suggested it. No a) General Score: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects who had considered seeing a professional about anger and those who had not. Those who have never considered seeing someone for an anger problem had much lower scores on the anger profile than all the other groups. There were smaller differences between some of the other groups, with people who had seen a professional in the past scoring lowest, possibly because they have learned some techniques to deal with anger. The effects are very robust. See Annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,42565) = 479.251 p < 0.0001 OVERALL ANGER SCORE AS A FUNCTION OF THINKING ABOUT SEEING A PROFESSIONAL

Have you ever considered seeing a professional about your anger?

No

No, but people close

Yes, I have consider

Yes, I have seen som

Yes, I am currently

Mea

n of

Ove

rall

ange

r sco

re

62

60

58

56

54

52


b) Angry emotions: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects who had considered seeing a professional about anger and those who had not. Those who have never considered seeing someone for an anger problem had much lower scores on this subscale than all the other groups. There were smaller differences between some of the other groups, with people who had seen a professional in the past scoring lowest. See Annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,42565) = 448.187 p < 0.0001 SCORE ON ANGRY EMOTIONS AS A FUNCTION OF THINKING ABOUT SEEING A PROFESSIONAL


No




Yes, I am currently

Mea

n of

Ang

ry e

mot

ions

60

58

56

54

52

50


c) Angry behavior: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects who had considered seeing a professional about anger and those who had not. Those who have never considered seeing someone for an anger problem had much lower scores on this subscale than all the other groups. There were smaller differences between the rest of the groups, with people who have considered seeing a professional scoring lowest, and people who were not considering seeking help but who had been told by others that they should scoring significantly higher than all the other groups. The effects are robust. See Annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,42565) = 550.091 p < 0.0001 SCORE ON ANGRY BEHAVIOR AS A FUNCTION OF THINKING ABOUT SEEING A PROFESSIONAL


No




Yes, I am currently

Mea

n of

Ang

ry b

ehav

ior

48

46

44

42

40

38


d) Anger in highly emotionally loaded situations: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects who had considered seeing a professional about anger and those who had not. Those who have never considered seeing someone for an anger problem had much lower scores on this subscale than all the other groups. There were smaller differences between some of the other groups, with people who had seen a professional in the past scoring lowest. The effects are robust. See Annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,42565) = 313.649 p < 0.0001

ANGER IN HIGHLY EMOTIONALLY LOADED SITUATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF THINKING ABOUT

SEEING A PROFESSIONAL


No




Yes, I am currently

Mea

n of

Ang

er in

em

otio

nal s

ituat

ions

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

69

68


e) Anger in moderately emotionally loaded situations: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects who had considered seeing a professional about anger and those who had not. Those who have never considered seeing someone for an anger problem had much lower scores on this subscale than all the other groups. There were smaller differences between some of the other groups, with people who had seen a professional in the past scoring lowest. People who are currently seeing someone for their anger scored significantly higher than all the other groups. The effects are robust. See Annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,42565) = 424.004 p > 0.001

ANGER IN MODERATELY EMOTIONALLY LOADED SITUATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF THINKING ABOUT SEEING A PROFESSIONAL


No




Yes, I am currentlyMea

n of

Ang

er in

mod

erat

ely

emot

iona

l situ

atio

ns 60

58

56

54

52

50

48


f) Anger in benign situations: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects who had considered seeing a professional about anger and those who had not. Those who have never considered seeing someone for an anger problem had much lower scores on this subscale than all the other groups. There were smaller differences between some of the other groups, with people who had seen a professional in the past and those who have considered it scoring significantly lower than the other two groups. The effects are robust. See Annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,42565) = 354.532 p > 0.0001

SCORES ON ANGER IN BENIGN SITUATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF THINKING ABOUT SEEING A PROFESSIONAL


No




Yes, I am currently

Mea

n of

Ang

er in

ben

ign

situ

atio

ns

50

48

46

44

42

40

38


g) Anger in situations with long-term consequences: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects who had considered seeing a professional about anger and those who had not. Those who have never considered seeing someone for an anger problem had much lower scores on this subscale than all the other groups. There were smaller differences between some of the other groups, with people who had seen a professional in the past scoring lowest. See Annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(4,42565) = 412.339 p < 0.0001

SCORE ON ANGER IN SITUATIONS WITH LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES AS A FUNCTION OF THINKING ABOUT SEEING A PROFESSIONAL


No




Yes, I am currently

Mea

n of

Ang

er in

sit.

w/ l

ong-

term

con

sequ

ence

s 72

70

68

66

64

62


h) Anger in situations with short-term consequences: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects who had considered seeing a professional about anger and those who had not. Those who have never considered seeing someone for an anger problem had much lower scores on this subscale than all the other groups. There were smaller differences between some of the other groups, with people who had seen a professional in the past and those who have considered it scoring significantly lower than the other two groups. The effects are robust. See annex 3 for homogeneous subsets. F(4,42565) = 406.022 p < 0.0001

SCORE IN ANGER IN SITUATIONS WITH SHORT-TERM CONSEQUENCES AS A FUNCTION OF THINKING ABOUT SEEING A PROFESSIONAL


No




Yes, I am currently

Mea

n of

Ang

er in

sit.

w/ s

hort

-ter

m c

onse

quen

ces 52

50

48

46

44

42


3. Relationship between whether test-takers think they have an anger problem and scores on the Anger Profile Question #3: Do you think you have an anger problem? Yes, definitely Maybe a slight problem Unlikely I don’t think so a) General score: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects who had considered seeing a professional about anger and those who had not. Those who feel that they have a problem with anger have much higher scores than those who don’t, and there are significant differences between all the groups. The effects are robust. See annex 4 for homogeneous subsets. F(4,51091) = 1817.516 p < 0.0001

SCORES ON THE ANGER TEST IN RELATIONSHIP TO WHETHER THE SUBJECTS FEEL THAT THEY HAVE AN ANGER PROBLEM

Do you think you have an anger problem?

I don't think soUnlikelyMaybe a slight problYes, definitely

Mea

n of

Ove

rall

ange

r sc

ore

70

60

50

40


b) Angry Emotions: Significant differences in angry emotions were found among groups of subjects who had considered seeing a professional about anger and those who had not. Those who feel that they have a problem with anger have much higher scores than those who don’t, and there are significant differences between all the groups. The effects are very robust. See annex 4 for homogeneous subsets. F(4,51091) = 1728.800 p < 0.0001

ANGRY EMOTION SCORES IN RELATIONSHIP TO WHETHER THE SUBJECTS FEEL THAT THEY HAVE AN ANGER PROBLEM



Mea

n of

Ang

ry e

mot

ions

70

60

50

40


c) Angry behavior: Significant differences in angry behavior were found among groups of subjects who had considered seeing a professional about anger and those who had not. Those who feel that they have a problem with anger have much higher scores than those who don’t, and there are significant differences between all the groups. The effects are very robust. See annex 4 for homogeneous subsets. F(4,51091) = 1538.072 p < 0.0001 ANGRY BEHAVIOR SCORES IN RELATIONSHIP TO WHETHER THE SUBJECTS FEEL THAT THEY

HAVE AN ANGER PROBLEM



Mea

n of

Ang

ry b

ehav

ior

52

50

48

46

44

42

40

38

36

34


d) Anger in heavily emotionally loaded situations: Significant differences in scores on anger in heavily emotionally loaded situations were found among groups of subjects who had considered seeing a professional about anger and those who had not. Those who feel that they have a problem with anger have much higher scores than those who don’t, and there are significant differences between all the groups. The effects are robust. See annex 4 for homogeneous subsets. F(4,51091) = 1252.667 p < 0.0001

ANGER IN HEAVILY EMOTIONALLY LOADED SITUATIONS ACCORDING TO WHETHER SUBJECTS BELIEVE THEY HAVE AN ANGER PROBLEM



Mea

n of

Ang

er in

hea

vily

em

otio

nal s

ituat

ions

80

78

76

74

72

70

68

66


e) Anger in moderately emotionally loaded situations: Significant differences in scores on anger in moderately emotionally loaded situations were found among groups of subjects who had considered seeing a professional about anger and those who had not. Those who feel that they have a problem with anger have much higher scores than those who don’t, and there are significant differences between all the groups. The effects are very robust. See annex 4 for homogeneous subsets. F(4,51091) = 1525.600 p < 0.0001

ANGER IN MODERATELY EMOTIONALLY LOADED SITUATIONS ACCORDING TO WHETHER SUBJECTS BELIEVE THEY HAVE AN ANGER PROBLEM



Mea

n of

Ang

er in

mod

erat

ely

emot

iona

l situ

atio

ns 70

60

50

40


f) Anger in benign situations: Significant differences in scores on anger in benign situations were found among groups of subjects who had considered seeing a professional about anger and those who had not. Those who feel that they have a problem with anger have much higher scores than those who don’t, and there are significant differences between all the groups. The effects are very robust. See annex 4 for homogeneous subsets. F(4,51091) = 1272.201 p < 0.0001 ANGER IN BENIGN SITUATIONS ACCORDING TO WHETHER SUBJECTS BELIEVE THEY HAVE AN

ANGER PROBLEM



Mea

n of

Ang

er in

ben

ign

situ

atio

ns

60

50

40

30


g) Anger in situations with long-term consequences: Significant differences in scores on anger in situations with long-term consequences were found among groups of subjects who had considered seeing a professional about anger and those who had not Those who feel that they have a problem with anger have much higher scores than those who don’t, and there are significant differences between all the groups. The effects are very robust. See annex 4 for homogeneous subsets. F(4,51091) = 1427.614 p < 0.0001

ANGER IN SITUATIONS W/ LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES ACCORDING TO WHETHER SUBJECTS BELIEVE THEY HAVE AN ANGER PROBLEM



Mea

n of

Ang

er in

sit.

w/ l

ong-

term

con

sequ

ence

s 74

72

70

68

66

64

62

60


h) Anger in situations with short-term consequences: Significant differences in scores on anger in situations with short-term consequences were found among groups of subjects who had considered seeing a professional about anger and those who had not Those who feel that they have a problem with anger have much higher scores than those who don’t, and there are significant differences between all the groups. The effects are very robust. See annex 4 for homogeneous subsets. F(4,51091) = 1612.632 p < 0.0001

ANGER IN SITUATIONS W/ SHORT TERM CONSEQUENCES ACCORDING TO WHETHER SUBJECTS BELIEVE THEY HAVE AN ANGER PROBLEM



Mea

n of

Ang

er in

sit.

w/s

hort

-ter

m c

onse

quen

ces 60

50

40

30


4. Relationship between relationship satisfaction and scores on the Anger Profile Question #4: How satisfied are you with your current relationship? I am 100% satisfied with my relationship with my partner I am quite content with my relationship with my partner I am neither happy nor unhappy (Neutral) I am rather unhappy in the relationship Our relationship is terrible (Terribly unsatisfied) I am not in a relationship at present a) Overall anger score: Significant differences in the overall anger score were found among groups of subjects with different levels of satisfaction within their relationships. The anger score tended to increase as relationship satisfaction decreased. The effects are robust. See annex 5 for homogeneous subsets. F(5,50247) = 80.446 p < 0.0001

OVERALL ANGER SCORE AS A FUNCTION OF RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION

How satisfied are you with your current relationship?

I am not in a relati

Terribly unsatisfied

I am rather unhappy

Neutral

I am quite content w

I am 100% satisfied

Mea

n of

Ove

rall

ange

r sc

ore

64

62

60

58

56

54

52


b) Angry Emotions: Significant differences in this subscale were found among groups of subjects with different levels of satisfaction within their relationships. The angry emotions score tended to increase as relationship satisfaction decreased. The effects are robust. See annex 5 for homogeneous subsets. F(5,50247) = 79.161 p < 0.0001

ANGRY EMOTIONS SCORE AS A FUNCTION OF RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION




I am rather unhappy

Neutral


I am 100% satisfied

Mea

n of

Ang

ry e

mot

ions

64

62

60

58

56

54

52


c) Angry behavior: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with different levels of satisfaction within their relationships. The angry behavior score tended to increase as relationship satisfaction decreased. The effects are robust. See annex 5 for homogeneous subsets. F(5,50247) = 76.456 p < 0.0001

ANGRY BEHAVIOR SCORE AS A FUNCTION OF RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION




I am rather unhappy

Neutral


I am 100% satisfied

Mea

n of

Ang

ry b

ehav

ior

50

48

46

44

42

40

38


d) Anger in heavily emotionally loaded situations: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with different levels of satisfaction within their relationships. The anger in heavily emotionally loaded situations score tended to increase as relationship satisfaction decreased. The effects are robust. See annex 5 for homogeneous subsets.

F(5,50247) = 40.136 p < 0.0001

ANGER IN HEAVILY EMOTIONALLY LOADED SUBJECTS AS A FUNCTION OF RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION




I am rather unhappy

Neutral


I am 100% satisfied

Mea

n of

Ang

er in

hea

vily

em

otio

nal s

ituat

ions

76

75

74

73

72

71

70

69


e) Anger in moderately emotionally loaded situations: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with different levels of satisfaction within their relationships. The score on anger in moderately emotionally loaded situations tended to increase as relationship satisfaction decreased. The effects are robust. See annex 5 for homogeneous subsets. F(5,50247) = 95.348 p < 0.0001

ANGER IN MODERATELY EMOTIONALLY LOADED SUBJECTS AS A FUNCTION OF RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION



Our relationship is

I am rather unhappy

Neutral


I am 100% satisfied

Mea

n of

Ang

er in

mod

. em

otio

nal s

ituat

ions

64

62

60

58

56

54

52

50


f) Anger in benign situations: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with different levels of satisfaction within their relationships. The score on anger in benign situations tended to increase as relationship satisfaction decreased. The effects are robust. See annex 5 for homogeneous subsets. F(5,50247) = 73.791 p < 0.0001

ANGER IN BENIGN SITUATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION




I am rather unhappy

Neutral


I am 100% satisfied

Mea

n of

Ang

er in

ben

ign

situ

atio

ns

54

52

50

48

46

44

42

40

38


g) Anger in situations with long-term consequences: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with different levels of satisfaction within their relationships. The anger score in situations with long-term consequences tended to increase as relationship satisfaction decreased. The effects are robust. See annex 5 for homogeneous subsets. F(5,50247) = 51.608 p < 0.0001 ANGER IN SITUATIONS WITH LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES AS A FUNCTION OF RELATIONSHIP

SATISFACTION




I am rather unhappy

Neutral


I am 100% satisfiedMea

n of

Ang

er in

sit.

w/ l

ong-

term

con

sequ

ence

s

72

70

68

66

64


h) Anger in situations with short-term consequences: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with different levels of satisfaction within their relationships. The anger score in situations with short-term consequences tended to increase as relationship satisfaction decreased. The effects are robust. See annex 5 for homogeneous subsets. F(5,50247) = 84.202 p < 0.0001

ANGER IN SITUATIONS WITH SHORT-TERM CONSEQUENCES AS A FUNCTION OF RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION




I am rather unhappy

Neutral


I am 100% satisfied

Ang

er in

sit.

w/s

hort-

term

con

sequ

ence

s

56

54

52

50

48

46

44

42


5. Relationship between age and scores on the Anger Profile Question #5: What is your age? 10-15 16-18 19-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-49 50-59 60+ a) Overall anger score: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with respect to age. The anger score tended to decrease with age, excluding the 60+ age groups. This increase could be due to an actual increase in anger in the oldest group, or could be a result of the fact that Internet and technologically savvy people are not typical of older generations, therefore creating a sampling bias that doesn’t include a fair proportion of the population. The effects are robust. See annex 6 for homogeneous subsets. F(8,53689) = 91.909 p < 0.0001

OVERALL ANGER SCORE AS A FUNCTION OF AGE

Age Groups

60+50-5940-4935-3930-3425-2918-2416-1810-15

Mea

n of

Ove

rall

ange

r sco

re

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51


b) Angry emotions: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with respect to age. The anger score in angry emotions tended to decrease with age, excluding the 60+ age groups. This increase could be due to an actual increase in anger in the oldest group, or could be a result of the fact that Internet and technologically savvy people are not typical of older generations. The effects are robust. See annex 6 for homogeneous subsets. F(8,53689) = 64.424 p < 0.0001

ANGRY EMOTIONS SCORE AS A FUNCTION OF AGE

Age Groups

60+50-5940-4935-3930-3425-2918-2416-1810-15

Mea

n of

Ang

ry e

mot

ions

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50


c) Angry behavior: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with respect to age. The anger score in angry behavior tended to decrease with age, excluding the 60+ age groups. This increase could be due to an actual increase in anger in the oldest group, or could be a result of the fact that Internet and technologically savvy people are not typical of older generations. The effects are very robust. See annex 6 for homogeneous subsets. F(8,53689) = 420.871 p < 0.0001

ANGRY BEHAVIOR SCORE AS A FUNCTION OF AGE

Age Groups

60+50-5940-4935-3930-3425-2918-2416-1810-15

Mea

n of

Ang

ry b

ehav

ior

50

40

30


d) Anger in heavily emotionally loaded situations: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with respect to age. The score in anger in heavily emotionally loaded situations tended to decrease with age, beginning beyond the 25-29 age group, with this decrease reversed in the 60+ age groups. This increase could be due to an actual increase in anger in the oldest group, or could be a result of the fact that Internet and technologically savvy people are not typical of older generations. The effects are robust. See annex 6 for homogeneous subsets. F(8,53689) = 22.589 p < 0.0001

ANGER IN HEAVILY EMOTIONALLY LOADED SITUATIONS SCORE AS A FUNCTION OF AGE

Age Groups

60+50-5940-4935-3930-3425-2918-2416-1810-15

Mea

n of

Ang

er in

hea

vily

em

otio

nal s

ituat

ions

72

71

70

69

68


e) Anger in moderately emotionally loaded situations: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with respect to age. The anger score in anger in moderately emotionally loaded situations tended to decrease with age until it reached a plateau in middle age, then dramatically increased in the 60+ age group. This increase could be due to an actual increase in anger in the oldest group, or could be a result of the fact that Internet and technologically savvy people are not typical of older generations. The effects are robust. See annex 6 for homogeneous subsets. F(8,53689) = 61.949 p < 0.0001

ANGER IN MODERATELY EMOTIONALLY LOADED SITUATIONS SCORE AS A FUNCTION OF AGE

Age Groups

60+50-5940-4935-3930-3425-2918-2416-1810-15

Mea

n of

Ang

er in

mod

. em

otio

nally

load

ed s

ituat

ions 57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49


f) Anger in benign situations: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with respect to age. The anger score in benign situations tended to decrease with age, excluding the 60+ age groups. This increase could be due to an actual increase in anger in the oldest group, or could be a result of the fact that Internet and technologically savvy people are not typical of older generations. The effects are robust. See annex 6 for homogeneous subsets. F(8,53689) = 173.021 p < 0.0001

ANGER IN BENIGN SITUATIONS SCORE AS A FUNCTION OF AGE

Age Groups

60+50-5940-4935-3930-3425-2918-2416-1810-15

Mea

n of

Ang

er in

ben

ign

situ

atio

ns

50

48

46

44

42

40

38

36


g) Anger in situations with long-term consequences: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with respect to age. The anger score in situations with long-term consequences tended to decrease with age, excluding the 60+ age groups. This increase could be due to an actual increase in anger in the oldest group, or could be a result of the fact that Internet and technologically savvy people are not typical of older generations. The effects are robust. See annex 6 for homogeneous subsets. F(8,53689) = 134.803 p < 0.0001 ANGER IN SITUATIONS WITH LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES AS A FUNCTION OF AGE

Age Groups

60+50-5940-4935-3930-3425-2918-2416-1810-15

Mea

n of

Ang

er in

sit.

w/ l

ong-

term

con

sequ

ence

s

70

68

66

64

62

60


h) Anger in situations with short-term consequences: Significant differences were found among groups of subjects with respect to age. The anger score in situations with short -term consequences tended to decrease with age, excluding the 60+ age groups. This increase could be due to an actual increase in anger in the oldest group, or could be a result of the fact that Internet and technologically savvy people are not typical of older generations. The effects are robust. See annex 6 for homogeneous subsets. F(8,53689) = 49.782 p < 0.0001

ANGER IN SITUATIONS WITH SHORT-TERM CONSEQUENCES AS A FUNCTION OF AGE

Age Groups

60+50-5940-4935-3930-3425-2918-2416-1810-15

Mea

n of

Ang

er in

sit.

w/ s

hort

-ter

m c

onse

quen

ces

52

50

48

46

44

42


Correlations

Angry emotions

Angry behavior

Overall anger score

Anger in heavily

emotionally loaded

situations

Anger inmoderately emotionally

loaded situations

Anger in benign

situations

Anger in situations with

long-term consequences

Anger in situations with

short-term consequences

Age

Angry emotions

Pearson Correlation

1.000 .597 .987 .823 .893 .860 .896 .928 -.069

Sig.(2-tailed)

. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 53749Angry

behaviorPearson

Correlation .597 1.000 .657 .518 .572 .615 .572 .634 -.220

Sig.(2-tailed)

.000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 53749Overall score Pearson

Correlation .987 .657 1.000 .822 .903 .881 .899 .945 -.086

Sig.(2-tailed)

.000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 53749Emotionally

loaded situations

Pearson Correlation

.823 .518 .822 1.000 .648 .559 .745 .772 -.047

Sig.(2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 53749Mod. loaded

situationsPearson

Correlation .893 .572 .903 .648 1.000 .695 .823 .845 -.059

Sig.(2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000

N 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 53749Anger in

benign situations

Pearson Correlation

.860 .615 .881 .559 .695 1.000 .777 .845 -.112

Sig.(2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000

N 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 53749Long-term

consequencesPearson

Correlation .896 .572 .899 .745 .823 .777 1.000 .707 -.118

Sig.(2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000

N 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 53749Short-term

consequencesPearson

Correlation .928 .634 .945 .772 .845 .845 .707 1.000 -.052

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000

N 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 53749


Correlations (Continued)

?? All the subscales vary between moderately and strongly positively correlated with one another.

?? Age is slightly negatively correlated with the angry behavior subscale.


T-Test for Gender Differences- Statistically significant gender differences in the anger profile were identified between men and women. a) Overall anger score: Significant gender differences were found in the overall anger score. Women had higher scores on the anger profile. t(53590) = 17.127 p < 0.0001 b) Angry emotions: Significant gender differences were found in this subscale. Women had more angry emotions than men. t(53590) = 20.365 p < 0.0001 c) Angry behavior: Significant gender differences were found in this subscale. Men scored higher than women in this subscale. t(53590) = -14.205 p < 0.0001 d) Anger in heavily emotionally loaded situations: Significant gender differences were found in this subscale. Women were had higher scores. t(53590) = 20.217 p < 0.0001 e) Anger in moderate emotionally loaded situations: Significant gender differences were found in this subscale. Women had higher scores. t(53590) = 26.966 p < 0.0001 f) Anger in benign situations: No significant gender differences were found in this subscale. t(53590) = -.409 p < 0.0001 g) Anger in situations with long-term consequences: Significant gender differences were found in this subscale. Women had higher scores. t(53590) = 32.928 p < 0.0001 h) Anger in situations with short-term consequences: Significant gender differences were found in this subscale. Women had higher scores. t(53590) = 3.324 p < 0.0001


ANNEX 1 -Descriptive Statistics Statistics

72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 72924 729241 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

53.6260 40.6948 55.2939 71.0847 52.5847 42.2144 65.1707 45.38815.994E-02 5.935E-02 5.671E-02 5.599E-02 6.725E-02 7.190E-02 5.231E-02 7.030E-02

52.4749a 38.5712a 53.8155a 72.0004a 51.6020a 39.1141a 65.2440a 42.7324a

50.00 33.00 53.00 75.00 50.00 30.00 67.00 37.0016.1872 16.0259 15.3153 15.1210 18.1613 19.4153 14.1266 18.9838

262.0258 256.8309 234.5575 228.6442 329.8332 376.9521 199.5609 360.3857

.268 .859 .345 -.455 .273 .703 -.149 .567

.009 .009 .009 .009 .009 .009 .009 .009

.095 .953 .068 .499 -.241 .113 .339 -.086

.018 .018 .018 .018 .018 .018 .018 .018100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

3910620.00 2967626.00 4032254.00 5183779.00 3834688.00 3078440.00 4752508.00 3309884.00

29.1691b 19.1728b 32.4670b 45.3679b 24.5293b 15.7542b 42.2069b 18.7781b

33.9388 22.7772 37.1022 52.3445 29.8165 19.7500 47.5233 22.701837.4082 24.8522 39.7634 55.8905 33.8893 22.4584 51.2672 26.003539.9433 27.0375 42.3359 59.0042 37.1012 25.0706 53.4555 28.118942.3422 29.0889 44.2165 61.5049 39.5565 27.3622 56.1949 31.073144.2797 30.6096 46.7102 63.8309 42.3814 29.6538 57.8332 32.986446.7631 33.0659 48.1319 65.7751 44.4882 31.9656 59.9178 35.831348.1633 34.5255 50.3065 68.2146 47.0327 34.2809 62.0608 37.8162

50.5389 36.0483 52.2856 69.7560 49.2102 36.6789 63.1789 40.507952.4749 38.5712 53.8155 72.0004 51.6020 39.1141 65.2440 42.732454.4174 40.1486 56.1267 73.9069 53.9863 41.7072 67.1550 45.506956.9790 42.6143 57.8314 75.7202 56.4650 44.3906 68.4091 47.871258.6841 44.5932 60.2041 78.0797 59.0814 47.4006 70.6020 51.201161.6165 47.0580 62.5263 79.8454 61.9612 50.6020 72.4585 53.961863.8823 49.7169 65.1678 82.4374 64.7885 54.2921 74.4327 57.555667.2845 53.1901 67.8340 84.5681 68.4834 58.5159 77.1695 61.7004

70.9187 56.5404 71.7883 87.3369 72.5177 63.4502 79.7031 66.280875.3377 61.9976 76.0562 90.3555 77.6076 69.7207 82.9524 72.168782.2153 70.2384 82.4736 94.9425 84.6695 79.3239 87.9169 80.625486.8131 76.7221 87.1163 97.8132 89.7289 85.6373 92.1728 86.579196.7313 90.4779 96.9829 . 98.4699 97.5041 98.5878 97.8211

ValidMissing

N

MeanStd. Error of MeanMedian

ModeStd. DeviationVarianceSkewnessStd. Error of SkewnessKurtosisStd. Error of KurtosisRangeMinimum

MaximumSum

51015202530

3540455055606570

75808590959799

Percentiles

Angryemotions

Angrybehavior

Overallangerscore

Anger inheavily

emotionallyloaded

situations

Anger inmoderatelyemotionally

loadedsituations

Anger inbenign

situations

Anger insituations with

long-termconsequences

Anger insituations with

short-termconsequences

Calculated from grouped data.a.

Percentiles are calculated from grouped data.b.


ANNEX 2 – Homogeneous Subsets The following tables present the homogeneous subsets for all subscores with respect to whether or not the test-takers had been told that they had an anger problem.

Angry emotions

Tukey HSDa,b

17993 47.83624754 50.1897

10830 53.274912269 57.5790

5543 65.36411.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Have you been told thatyou have an angerproblem?NeverYes, once

Yes, a couple of timesYes, occasionallyYes, on a regular basisSig.

N 1 2 3 4 5Subset for alpha = .05

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 8062.222.a.

The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levelsare not guaranteed.

b.

Angry behavior

Tukey HSDa,b

17993 34.84714754 37.9645

10830 40.276412269 44.7399

5543 54.22701.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000







b.


Overall anger score

Tukey HSDa,b

17993 49.62504754 51.9182

10830 54.828012269 59.0847

5543 67.00451.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000







b.


Tukey HSDa,b

17993 66.29774754 67.9699

10830 71.177012269 74.6945

5543 79.74511.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000







b.


Tukey HSDa,b

17993 46.52874754 49.3136

10830 52.089412269 56.6527

5543 65.28831.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000







b.



Tukey HSDa,b

17993 36.05684754 38.4708

10830 41.224412269 45.9002

5543 55.98321.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000







b.


Tukey HSDa,b

17993 60.51124754 62.5337

10830 65.066612269 68.4284

5543 74.62241.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000







b.


Tukey HSDa,b

17993 38.70764754 41.2791

10830 44.555612269 49.7139

5543 59.35851.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000







b.


ANNEX 3 – Homogeneous Subsets The following tables present the homogeneous subsets for all subscores with respect to whether or not the test-takers had ever considered seeing a professional to help with anger.

Angry emotions

Tukey HSDa,b

23104 51.2571

3412 56.8968

6788 57.3544 57.3544

7734 58.1981 58.1981

1532 58.9987

1.000 .703 .126 .164

Have you ever consideredseeing a professionalabout your anger?NoYes, I have seensomeone in the pastYes, I have considered itNo, but people close tome have suggested itYes, I am currently seeingsomeoneSig.

N 1 2 3 4Subset for alpha = .05



The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type Ierror levels are not guaranteed.

b.

Angry behavior

Tukey HSDa,b

23104 38.56086788 43.8148

3412 44.3661

1532 45.6567

7734 47.3730

1.000 .535 1.000 1.000

Have you ever consideredseeing a professionalabout your anger?NoYes, I have considered it

Yes, I have seensomeone in the pastYes, I am currently seeingsomeoneNo, but people close tome have suggested itSig.





b.


Overall anger score

Tukey HSDa,b

23104 52.9831

3412 58.3672

6788 58.7575

7734 59.9311

1532 60.6084

1.000 .777 .264


N 1 2 3Subset for alpha = .05



The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes isused. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

b.


Tukey HSDa,b

23104 69.2442

3412 73.4399

6788 74.1818 74.1818

1532 74.4556

7734 74.7405

1.000 .168 .446

Have you ever consideredseeing a professionalabout your anger?NoYes, I have seensomeone in the pastYes, I have considered itYes, I am currently seeingsomeoneNo, but people close tome have suggested itSig.





b.



Tukey HSDa,b

23104 50.0164

3412 56.5695

6788 56.8967

7734 57.1629

1532 59.2030

1.000 .579 1.000






b.


Tukey HSDa,b

23104 39.6927

3412 45.0879

6788 45.1893

7734 47.8866

1532 48.1854

1.000 .999 .959






b.



Tukey HSDa,b

23104 63.2448

3412 67.9997

6788 68.4337 68.4337

7734 68.9259 68.9259

1532 69.7513

1.000 .629 .506 .060






b.


Tukey HSDa,b

23104 42.6899

3412 48.6902

6788 49.0498

7734 50.9086

1532 51.4674

1.000 .915 .677






b.


ANNEX 4 – Homogeneous Subsets The following tables present the homogeneous subsets for all subscores with respect to whether or not the test-takers had think they might have a problem with anger.

Angry emotions

Tukey HSDa,b

18151 48.6440

8545 50.380519027 56.4485

5372 63.44271.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

Do you think you have ananger problem?I don't think so

UnlikelyMaybe a slight problemYes, definitelySig.





b.

Angry behavior

Tukey HSDa,b

18151 36.0268

8545 38.591819027 43.5788

5372 50.19641.000 1.000 1.000 1.000







b.


Overall anger score

Tukey HSDa,b

18151 50.4624

8545 52.140319027 57.9392

5372 64.90381.000 1.000 1.000 1.000







b.


Tukey HSDa,b

18151 66.9394

8545 68.514719027 73.6663

5372 78.46631.000 1.000 1.000 1.000







b.


Tukey HSDa,b

18151 47.3339

8545 49.123319027 55.5991

5372 63.10551.000 1.000 1.000 1.000







b.



Tukey HSDa,b

18151 37.1258

8545 38.768919027 44.5567

5372 53.13481.000 1.000 1.000 1.000







b.


Tukey HSDa,b

18151 61.16508545 62.7317

19027 67.62045372 72.8773

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000







b.


Tukey HSDa,b

18151 39.7310

8545 41.505119027 48.2316

5372 56.90671.000 1.000 1.000 1.000







b.


ANNEX 5 – Homogeneous Subsets The following tables present the homogeneous subsets for all subscores with respect to relationship satisfaction.

Angry emotions

Tukey HSDa,b

8097 52.6769

21039 52.7214

13055 53.0687

4526 55.2048

2664 55.5920

872 61.5378.932 .935 1.000

How satisfied are you withyour current relationship?I am 100% satisfied withmy relationship with mypartnerI am not in a relationshipat presentI am quite content with myrelationship with mypartnerI am neither happy norunhappyI am rather unhappy in therelationshipOur relationship is terribleSig.





b.


Angry behavior

Tukey HSDa,b

13055 39.1461

8097 39.9148 39.9148

2664 40.4080 40.4080

21039 41.3828 41.3828

4526 41.6184

872 47.9518.413 .833 .161 .993 1.000

How satisfied are you withyour current relationship?I am quite content with myrelationship with mypartnerI am 100% satisfied withmy relationship with mypartnerI am rather unhappy in therelationshipI am not in a relationshipat presentI am neither happy norunhappyOur relationship is terribleSig.





b.

Overall anger score

Tukey HSDa,b

8097 54.4428

13055 54.4987

21039 54.5028

4526 56.7620

2664 56.9977

872 63.01721.000 .991 1.000

How satisfied are you withyour current relationship?I am 100% satisfied withmy relationship with mypartnerI am quite content with myrelationship with mypartnerI am not in a relationshipat presentI am neither happy norunhappyI am rather unhappy in therelationshipOur relationship is terribleSig.





b.



Tukey HSDa,b

21039 70.0567

13055 71.1546

8097 71.1974

4526 71.9101

2664 72.1599

872 75.62041.000 .094 1.000

How satisfied are you withyour current relationship?I am not in a relationshipat presentI am quite content with myrelationship with mypartnerI am 100% satisfied withmy relationship with mypartnerI am neither happy norunhappyI am rather unhappy in therelationshipOur relationship is terribleSig.





b.


Tukey HSDa,b

8097 51.0046

21039 51.7002

13055 51.8984

4526 54.9306

2664 55.2436

872 61.6342.382 .985 1.000

How satisfied are you withyour current relationship?I am 100% satisfied withmy relationship with mypartnerI am not in a relationshipat presentI am quite content with myrelationship with mypartnerI am neither happy norunhappyI am rather unhappy in therelationshipOur relationship is terribleSig.





b.



Tukey HSDa,b

13055 40.4443

8097 41.1214

21039 41.7639

4526 43.4236

2664 43.5717

872 51.7833.079 1.000 1.000

How satisfied are you withyour current relationship?I am quite content with myrelationship with mypartnerI am 100% satisfied withmy relationship with mypartnerI am not in a relationshipat presentI am neither happy norunhappyI am rather unhappy in therelationshipOur relationship is terribleSig.





b.


Tukey HSDa,b

8097 64.4144

13055 64.6424

21039 64.7935

4526 66.0256

2664 66.7309

872 71.0745.899 .365 1.000

How satisfied are you withyour current relationship?I am 100% satisfied withmy relationship with mypartnerI am quite content with myrelationship with mypartnerI am not in a relationshipat presentI am neither happy norunhappyI am rather unhappy in therelationshipOur relationship is terribleSig.





b.



Tukey HSDa,b

21039 44.1881

13055 44.3249

8097 44.4399

2664 47.2158

4526 47.4474

872 54.9094.995 .997 1.000

How satisfied are you withyour current relationship?I am not in a relationshipat presentI am quite content with myrelationship with mypartnerI am 100% satisfied withmy relationship with mypartnerI am rather unhappy in therelationshipI am neither happy norunhappyOur relationship is terribleSig.





b.


ANNEX 6 – Homogeneous Subsets The following tables present the homogeneous subsets for all subscores with respect to age.

Angry emotions

Tukey HSDa,b

1400 50.98643713 51.1128

4818 52.1872 52.18723198 52.3221 52.32217440 52.8141

15116 52.9379

11189 54.96266503 56.3654 56.3654

321 56.8224.237 .899 .180 .995

AGEGRPS8.007.00

5.006.004.003.00

2.001.009.00Sig.




The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizesis used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

b.

Angry behavior

Tukey HSDa,b

1400 31.69003713 33.8012

3198 36.07884818 37.2026

321 38.85057440 39.2676

15116 41.044511189 44.6490

6503 46.19911.000 1.000 .429 .997 1.000 .070

AGEGRPS8.007.00

6.005.009.004.00

3.002.001.00Sig.

N 1 2 3 4 5 6Subset for alpha = .05



The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I errorlevels are not guaranteed.

b.


Overall anger score

Tukey HSDa,b

1400 52.15433713 52.3919

3198 53.5813 53.58134818 53.5926 53.59267440 54.4163

15116 54.633111189 56.7998

6503 58.3372321 58.3614

.105 .492 .054

AGEGRPS8.007.00

6.005.004.003.002.00

1.009.00Sig.




The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean ofthe group sizes is used. Type I error levels are notguaranteed.

b.


Tukey HSDa,b

1400 68.20073713 68.7086

3198 70.27334818 70.4473

321 71.043615116 71.355811189 71.4219

7440 71.44746503 71.4996

.985 .263

AGEGRPS8.007.00

6.005.009.003.002.00

4.001.00Sig.

N 1 2Subset for alpha = .05




b.



Tukey HSDa,b

3713 50.29331400 50.4379

4818 51.08667440 51.4910

15116 51.57633198 51.7058

11189 54.0824

6503 55.8193 55.8193321 56.5202

.320 .095 .965

AGEGRPS7.008.00

5.004.003.006.002.00

1.009.00Sig.





b.


Tukey HSDa,b

1400 37.79643713 38.1686

3198 38.7664 38.76644818 39.2559 39.2559 39.25597440 40.2991 40.2991

15116 40.9801

11189 44.8901321 47.5234

6503 47.7095.350 .283 .147 1.000 1.000

AGEGRPS8.007.00

6.005.004.003.00

2.009.001.00Sig.




The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used.Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

b.



Tukey HSDa,b

1400 61.40793713 61.8004 61.8004

3198 63.0081 63.00814818 63.2310 63.23107440 64.2276 64.2276

15116 64.9267

321 66.672911189 66.9701

6503 68.4252.996 .055 .180 .856 .999 1.000

AGEGRPS8.007.00

6.005.004.003.00

9.002.001.00Sig.

N 1 2 3 4 5 6Subset for alpha = .05



The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I errorlevels are not guaranteed.

b.


Tukey HSDa,b

1400 42.84293713 42.9623

4818 43.93073198 44.1341

15116 44.31587440 44.5587

11189 46.5925

6503 48.2282 48.2282321 50.0374

.142 .191 .098

AGEGRPS8.007.00

5.006.003.004.002.00

1.009.00Sig.





b.

psychometric report anger profilehr.psychtests.com/archprofile/stats/anger.pdf · 5. anger in...

Documents