Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations
1988 Women and anger: gender and sex role differences in anger expression and their effects on depression and self Beverly Ann Kopper-Roland Iowa State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Psychology Commons
Recommended Citation Kopper-Roland, Beverly Ann, "Women and anger: gender and sex role differences in anger expression and their effects on depression and self " (1988). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 8862. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/8862
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS The most advanced technology has been used to photo graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. These are also available as one exposure on a standard 35mm slide or as a IT x 23" black and white photographic print for an additional charge. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Number 8000164
Women and anger: Gender and sex-role differences in anger expression and their effects on depression and self
Kopper-Roland, Beverly Ann, Ph.D. Iowa State University, 1988
UMI 300N.ZeebRd. Ann Aibor, MI 48106 Women and anger: Gender and sex role differences In anger
expression and their effects on depression and self
by
Beverly Ann Kopper-Roland
A Dissertation Submitted to the
Graduate Faculty In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Major: Psychology
Approved:
Signature was redacted for privacy.
Signature was redacted for privacy.
For the Major Department
Signature was redacted for privacy. For the Graduate College
Iowa State University Ames, Iowa
1988 il
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1 LITERATURE REVIEW 3
The Psychology of Women 4
Ethical Issues in the Psychology of Women 6
Counseling Women 11
Women and Anger 19
Anger and symptomology 23
Sex Role Issues 29
Summary 33 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 35 METHOD 40
Subjects 40
Materials 43
Demographic questionnaire 43 State-Trait Anger Scale (STAS) 44 Anger Expression (AX) Scale 46 Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI) 50 Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) 52 Bern Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) 54 Interpersonal Behavior Survey (IBS) 57
Procedure 59
RESULTS 61
Analyses of Variance 62
Multiple Regression and Correlation 106
Cluster Analyses 116
Preliminary analyses 116 Cluster analysis using factor scores 118 Validation of clusters 120 Ill
Cluster analysis using unit factor scores 129
DISCUSSION 134
Limitations of the Study 141
Implications 142
REFERENCES 145
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 154a
APPENDIX A. TEST BOOKLET 155
APPENDIX B. INSTRUCTIONS FOR TESTING BOOKLET ADMINISTRATION 184
APPENDIX C. PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR SAMPLE VARIABLES BY SEX 187
APPENDIX D. PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR SAMPLE VARIABLES 220
APPENDIX E. SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN THE MEANS FOR THE CLUSTERING VARIABLES 243 iv
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of subjects 41a
Table 2. Correlational matrices for the Buss Durkee Hostility Inventory 51
Table 3. Means and standard deviations for the total sample 63
Table 4. Analysis of variance for hypothesis one 65
Table 5. Significant differences in the means for sex role classification for trait anger 66
Table 6. Significant differences in the means for sex role classification for anger expression 67
Table 7. Analysis of variance for hypothesis two 69
Table 8. Significant differences in the means for sex role classification for anger suppression 70
Table 9. Analysis of variance for hypothesis three 71
Table 10. Significant differences in the means for sex role classification for anger control 72
Table 11. Analysis of variance for hypothesis four 74
Table 12. Significant differences in the means for sex, trait anger and anger suppression for depression 75
Table 13. Differences in the means for the interactional effect of trait anger and anger-out on depression 77
Table 14. Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relation ship of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-in, and anger-out and their interactions to self-confidence 80
Table 15. Significant differences In the means for sex role for self-confidence 81
Table 16. Significant differences in the means for trait anger for self-confidence 82
Table 17. Significant differences in the means for anger-in for self-confidence 83 V
Table 18. Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relation ship of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-In and anger-out and their Interactions to dependency 84
Table 19. Significant differences In the means for sex for dependency 86
Table 20. Significant differences in the means for sex role for dependency 87
Table 21. Significant differences in the means for trait anger for dependency 88
Table 22. Differences in the means for the interactional effect of sex and sex role on dependency 89
Table 23. Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relation ship of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-in, and anger-out and their interactions to passive- aggressiveness 90
Table 24. Significant differences in the means for sex for passive-aggressiveness 91
Table 25. Significant differences in the means for sex role for passive-aggressiveness 93
Table 26. Significant differences in the means for trait anger for passive-aggressiveness 94
Table 27. Significant differences in the means for anger-in for passive-aggressiveness 95
Table 28. Significant differences in the means for anger-out for passive-aggressiveness 96
Table 29. Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relation ship of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-in, and anger-out and their Interactions to conflict avoidance 97
Table 30. Significant differences in the means for sex role for conflict avoidance 98
Table 31. Significant differences in the means for anger-in for conflict avoidance 100
Table 32. Significant differences in the means for anger-out for conflict avoidance 101 vl
Table 33. Differences In the means for the Interactional effect of sex role and trait anger on conflict avoidance 102
Table 34. Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relation ship of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-In, and anger-out and their Interactions to guilt 103
Table 35. Significant differences in the means for trait anger for guilt 104
Table 36. Significant differences in the means for anger-in for guilt 105
Table 37, Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relation ship of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-in, and anger-out and their interactions to resentment 107
Table 38. Significant differences in the means for sex role for resentment 108
Table 39. Significant differences in the means for trait anger for resentment 109
Table 40. Significant differences in the means for anger-in for resentment 110
Table 41. Significant differences in the means for anger-out for resentment 111
Table 42. Pearson correlation coefficients for women and men 113
Table 43. Rotated factor pattern 117
Table 44. Analysis of variance with the five clusters 123
Table 45. Description of five clusters 124
Table 46. Cluster by sex frequency table 130
Table 47. Factor loading scores for clustering dimensions 131 vil
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Plot of seml-partlal r squared scores
Figure 2. Group means for the three factors using a five cluster solution
Figure 3. Plot of seml-partlal r squared scores
Figure 4. Group means for the three dimensions using a three cluster solution 1
INTRODUCTION
In recent years* traditional beliefs regarding the roles, ex
periences, behaviors, and expectations of women, and about women,
have gained more attention. This has prompted psychology and other
mental health professions to examine their theories and assumptions
about women. From this reexamination, a new field was born related to
the psychology of women and increased attention was given to the area
of counseling women. This resulted in new directions and guidelines
for treating women which focused on egalitarian therapy relationships
with a consciousness-raising approach. This included an exploration
of a woman's sense of personal power and unexpressed anger and helping her to redefine herself apart from others. Encouraging women to nurture themselves and develop multiple skills to Increase competence and productivity also were advocated. Finally, through information col lected from the lives and experiences of female clients, critical life issues affecting women's development, personality, and life satisfaction were identified. One of these important issues has been the manner in which women experience and express anger. Limited attempts have been made to study this issue empirically.
Many professionals examining the sources of women's anger focus on cultural determinants related to issues of powerlessness, dependency, and devaluation. Socialization and our culture's taboos against women experiencing and expressing anger have resulted in a milieu in which women are reinforced for hiding or suppressing anger, or expressing it
Indirectly. Many now believe that the resulting difficulties that women 2
have In expressing anger can be Implicated In a wide variety of mental
health problems Including depression, guilt, and passive-aggressiveness.
Although speculations about women's experience and expression of
anger have been widespread, little empirical evidence exists to support
those hypotheses. Intuitively, the relationship between unexpressed
anger and mental health difficulties appears justified. However, this
relationship must be evaluated. Additionally, since cultural factors
are so heavily implicated in this relationship, sex role differences,
as well as gender differences related to anger expression also must be
examined.
The intent of this study was to examine contemporary speculations regarding women and anger. Specifically, this study investigated women's experience and expression of anger as well as relationships that might exist among various aspects of anger and Important indices of mental health. Gender and sex role differences were explored to provide a more comprehensive study. 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
The majority of information and models available to professionals
working with women, including issues related to anger, are based on
clinical experience and interpretation. There exists a dearth of
information based on empirical investigation. Thus, although there
have been articles and books written advancing various guidelines
for treating women and facilitating the expression of anger, few are
presented with scientific data to support their recommendations.
This study focuses on several components of anger: intensity,
proneness as a personality trait, expression, and control. These anger
variables were Investigated as they relate to various consequences of
anger expression which affect important aspects of mental health, e.g.,
depression, guilt, self-confidence, dependency, passive-aggressiveness,
conflict avoidance, and resentment. A secondary focus was to examine
the relationships and possible gender and sex role differences which exist in the above variables and various components of hostility, aggressiveness, and assertlveness.
Relevant literature is reviewed in this section to provide a con text for the proposed study. The review is organized around the fol lowing content areas: the psychology of women, ethical Issues in the psychology of women, the field of counseling women, those studies re lated specifically to women and anger, and important sex role issues. 4
The Psychology of Women
There are several Important Issues related to the psychology of
women that need to be discussed as a foundation for examining Issues
related to women and anger. Beginning In 1926, Karen Homey addressed
the status of the psychology of women by stating:
Like all sciences and valuations, the psychology of women has hitherto been considered only from the point of view of men. It Is Inevitable that the man's position of advantage should cause objective validity to be attributed to his sub jective, affective relations to women... the question then Is how far analytical psychology also, when Its researches have women for their object. Is under the spell of this way of thinking (Kelman, 1967, p. 56).
Fifty years later, Phyllis Chesler (1976) echoed a similar concern
stating that "Female psychology Is still being viewed from a masculine
point of view" (p. 318).
Many psychologists today, In particular feminist psychologists,
still would agree that scientific Investigations conducted under the
rubric of the psychology of women do not necessarily guarantee that
the Issues examined will have relevance or prove beneficial to the
lives of women. Richardson and Johnson (1984) discuss the differences
that exist among various psychological Investigations of women which
can be classified into three categories: 1) psychology on women, 2) psy
chology against women, and 3) psychology of/for women. It is the latter,
the psychology of/for women which focuses on those issues of study most
relevant to women's lives. The psychology on and against women do not, for the most part, make explicit their underlying values and biases,
but remain within the framework of traditional psychology.
Two recent trends in the field of the psychology of women were 5
Identified by Richardson and Johnson (1984) as having important
implications for practice. The first major trend was the recogni
tion that values affect the development of theory and research re
lated to psychology as well as other fields of science. This led
to challenges to the belief that science, including psychology, can be value free. This also raised questions concerning why women typically have been ignored in psychological theory and re
search (Richardson & Johnson, 1984) and to renewed interest in psychologi
cal factors important to women. Therefore, the field of the psychology
of women has focused on issues relevant to women's lives, in many
cases, issues that have not been investigated by mainstream psychology.
The second major trend in the field with direct implications for practice was the recognition of environmental factors of critical im portance to the psychology of women. Many authors have discussed the need to relate theory and research in the psychology of women to broader issues of environmental, social, and political change (Collier, 1982;
Fitzgerald & Nutt, 1986; Mednick, 1978; Parlee, 1979; Richardson &
Johnson, 1984; Tangri & Strasburg, 1979). Therefore, relevant issues related to women are no longer being viewed from a strict intrapsychic perspective, but are being examined systemically. This sets the stage for broader interventions and strategies for change.
The field of the psychology of women, as the authors listed above have suggested, must focus on those issues most relevant to the lives and experiences of women. If this field is truly to be considered a thriving component of psychology and science alike, then the effort must be made to investigate those relevant issues utilizing sound 6
methodological principles. In this manner, conclusions and recommendations
can be offered based on empirical findings rather than mere specula
tion. This is Imperative if the psychology of women is to be considered
a discipline exempt from those same accusations of subjectlveness it
has levied against traditional psychology.
Ethical Issues in the Psychology of Women
In 1975, the American Psychological Association (APA) formed a
Task Force on Sex Bias and Sex Role Stereotyping in Psychotherapeutic
Practice. This task force was charged with investigating sexism in psychotherapy and making recommendations for corrective actions. The task force surveyed women psychologists and determined that sexism in therapy falls into four general categories: 1) fostering traditional sex roles, 2) bias in expectations and devaluation of women, 3) sexist use of psychoanalytic concepts, and 4) responding to women as sex objects, including seduction of female clients. From these categories, the task force developed 13 general guidelines for ethical and effective psychotherapy with women; "Guidelines for Therapy with Women, published in December 1978 in the American Psychologist. Each guideline was presented with a verbatim example taken from the initial survey of women psychologists. The specific guidelines are as follows:
1. The conduct of therapy should be free of constrictions based
on gender-defined roles, and the options explored between
client and practitioner should be free of sex role stereo
types. 7
2. Psychologists should recognize the reality, variety, and
Implications of sex-discriminatory practices in society and
should facilitate client examination of options in dealing
with such practices.
3. The therapist should be knowledgeable about current empirical
findings on sex roles, sexism, and individual differences
resulting from the client's gender-defined identity.
4. The theoretical concepts employed by the therapist should be
free of sex bias and sex role stereotypes.
5. The psychologist should demonstrate acceptance of women as
equal to men by using language free of derogatory labels.
6. The psychologist should avoid establishing the source of
personal problems within the client when they are more properly
attributable to situational or cultural factors.
7. The psychologist and a fully informed client mutually should
agree upon aspects of the therapy relationship such as treat
ment modality, time factors, and fee arrangements.
8. While the importance of the availability of accurate informa
tion to a client's family is recognized, the privilege of
communication about diagnosis, prognosis, and progress
ultimately resides with the client, not with the therapist.
9. If authoritarian processes are employed as a technique, the
therapy should not have the effect of maintaining or rein
forcing stereotypic dependency of women.
10. The client's assertive behaviors should be respected. 8
11. The psychologist whose female client Is subjected to violence
In the form of physical abuse or rape should recognize and
acknowledge that the client Is the victim of a crime.
12. The psychologist should recognize and encourage exploration
of a female client's sexuality and should recognize her right
to define her own sexual preferences.
13. The psychologist should not have sexual relations with a woman
client nor treat her as a sex object (p. 1122).
In 1984, the Division 17 Executive Committee approved the final version of "Principles Concerning the Counseling/Psychotherapy of
Women." This document presented the background, rationale, and sug gestions for implementation of 13 principles related to counseling women:
1. Counselors/therapists should be knowledgeable about women,
particularly with regard to biological, psychological, and
social Issues which Impact on women in general or on particular
groups of women in our society.
2. Counselors/therapists are aware that the assumptions and
precepts of theories relevant to their practice may apply
differently to men and women. Counselors/therapists are
aware of their theories and models that prescribe or limit
the potential of women clients, as well as those that may have
particular usefulness for women clients.
3. After formal training, counselors/therapists continue to
explore and learn of issues related to women, including the
special problems of female subgroups, throughout their 9
professional careers.
4. Counselors/therapists recognize and are aware of all forms of
oppression and how these interact with sexism.
5. Counselors/therapists are knowledgeable and aware of verbal
and nonverbal process variables (particularly with regard
to power In the relationship) as these affect women In
counseling/therapy so that the counselor/therapist Interactions
are not adversely affected. The need for shared responsibility
between clients and counselors/therapists is acknowledged and
Implemented.
6. Counselors/therapists have the capability of utilizing skills
that are particularly facultative to women in general and
to particular subgroups of women.
7. Counselors/therapists ascribe no preconceived limitations on
the direction or nature of potential changes or goals in
counseling/therapy for women.
8. Counselors/therapists are sensitive to circumstances where it
Is more desirable for a women client to be seen by a female
or male counselor/therapist.
9. Counselors/therapists use nonsexist language in counseling/
therapy, supervision, teaching, and journal publication.
10. Counselors/therapists do not engage in sexual activity with
their women clients under any circumstances.
11. Counselors/therapists are aware of and continually review
their own values and biases and the effects of these on their
women clients. They understand the effects of sex-role 10
socialization upon their own development and functioning and
the consequent values and attitudes they hold for themselves
and others. They recognize that behaviors and roles need not
be sex-based.
12. Counselors/therapists are aware of how their personal func
tioning may Influence their effectiveness In counseling/
therapy with women clients. They monitor their functioning
through consultation, supervision, or therapy so that It does
not adversely affect their work with women clients.
13. Counselors/therapists support the elimination of sex bias
within Institutions and Individuals (p. 181).
Professionals who have not had exposure to current theory and re search In the psychology and counseling of women may also be In jeopardy of violating Principle 2 of the general Ethical Principles of Psycholo gists. Principle 2 relates to Competence — "Psychologists recognize the boundaries of their competence and the limitations of their competence and the limitations of their techniques and only provide services, and use techniques that meet recognized standards for which they are qualified by training and experience" (APA, 1981, p. 634).
To practice without this knowledge and training "would appear to be in violation of ethical codes and licensing laws that require that one not practice outside one's area of competence" (Fitzgerald & Nutt,
1986, p. 187).
Thus, based upon the guidelines and principles of APA, it becomes evident that psychologists have an ethical Imperative not only to obtain the training, skills, and knowledge necessary to treat female clients 11
effectively, but to be knowledgeable of those distinctive factors that
have special relevance to women in general. Despite these efforts,
many counselors have little or no knowledge of the various biological,
psychological, and social issues impacting female clients (Fitzgerald &
Nutt, 1986). Additionally, until very recently, the distinctive
cultural realities of women's lives and minds, i.e., their life patterns,
personality, and psychological processes as females, have been dis
regarded (Collier, 1982). One of the critical issues frequently dis
cussed as impacting women's lives is their experience and expression
of anger.
Counseling Women
A major area of interest related to the psychology of women has been the experience of female clients in counseling and psychotherapy.
In fact, one of the distinguishing characteristics of research on counseling women has been its close relationship with the general study of women (Richardson & Johnson, 1984). This relationship is exemplified by several classic studies conducted during the 1970s which set the stage for examining the treatment of women in therapy.
In 1970, Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, and Vogel examined the sex-role stereotypes evident in clinical judgments of mental health. They found through analysis of the difference in clinician's descriptions of a mentally healthy adult male, adult female, and adult sex-unspecified, that therapists include sex-role stereotypes in their definitions of mental health. Specifically, mentally healthy 12
women were described as submissive, subjective, excitable in minor
crises, easily hurt, and conceited about their appearance. This defini
tion was in contrast to how these same clinicians viewed the healthy
adult male and adult sex-unspecified. The authors concluded that thera
pists subscribe to a double standard of mental health based on the sex
of the client. This led to the speculation that therapists Impose
stereotypic standards of mental health on their female clients, attempting
to promote adjustment to sex-typed norms, rather than behavior based on
a general, nonsexist standard of good mental health.
Similarly, after Interviewing hundreds of female clients and examining hospital statistics, Chesler (1972) reported severe problems in the way women were treated. She included political and theoretical issues in her report concluding that: 1) for a number of reasons women
"go crazy'* more often than men and this crazlness is more likely to be self-destructive rather than other-destructive, 2) most female "neuroses" are the result of societal demands and discrimination rather than sup posed mental illness, 3) the therapist-patient relationship reinforces a system of beliefs and attitudes that is psychologically damaging to the patient and rewarding to the therapist, and 4) female clients should always see a female therapist who is trained to be socially and politi cally aware, and cognizant of feminist issues.
These findings were consistent with Bem's (1974), as she designed her Sex Role Inventory. In the process of her work, Bern surveyed college students to discover the adjectives commonly used to describe the typically feminine or masculine person. The resulting adjectives for females were gentle, yielding, sympathetic, understanding, childlike, 13
and sensitive to the needs of others. For males, the adjectives were
ambitious, athletic, self-reliant, independent, assertive, dominant,
and competitive. One can readily see that the masculine adjectives
are those which society traditionally values, rewards, and usually
attributes to a healthy adult.
The results of these studies focused attention on allegations
related to the negative consequences of psychotherapy for women. The
role of society in furthering sexual stereotypes and biases also was
recognized. Through the development of specific models of counseling
women, attempts were made to remedy these negative consequences of
therapy, as well as identify those issues critical to women's life
experiences.
Carmen, Russo, and Miller (1984) discussed this focus on women's
issues:
This new scholarship has identified sex bias in psychologi cal theories and methods, documented the pervasive and destructive effects of gender inequality, and examined the stresses that differentially affect women by virtue of their subordinate social status, especially in their family roles. Every basic formulation about women's psychology has been questioned and, in many Instances, reconceptualized (p. 17).
Psychological theory, developed and investigated largely through the study of men, often has had little to offer related to women's behavior (Fitzgerald & Nutt, 1986). However, women have continued to remain the primary recipients of counseling since Freud first analyzed
Dora and Anna 0 (Richardson & Johnson, 1984). In fact, this tradition is reflected in a variety of stigmatizing labels generally reserved for female clients, ranging from penis-envy to hysterical neurosis.
Although women are the primary users of psychotherapy, problems specific 14
to women and women's Involvement In the development of theory and
practice have suffered wide-ranging neglect (Brodsky & Hare-Mustin,
1980).
Many feminist psychologists would agree that psychoanalytic theory
and some of its offshoots have been particularly damaging to women.
Freud's theories had a great impact on the way women, particularly
female clients were viewed. In one of his introductory lectures de
livered in 1917 on the sexual life of human beings, Freud discussed
women's development:
As regards little girls, we can say of them that they feel greatly at a disadvantage owing to their lack of a big, visible penis, that they envy boys for possessing one and that, in the main for this reason, they develop a wish to be a man — a wish that re-emerges later on, in any neurosis that may arise if they meet with a mishap in playing a feminine part (Strachey, 1966, p. 318).
Freud (1927) expanded his theory by discussing the implications of penis-
envy in women:
The psychological consequences of penis-envy. Insofar as it does not become absorbed in the reaction-formation of the masculinity complex, are various and far-reaching. After a woman has become aware of the wound to her narcissism, she develops, like a scar, a sense of Inferiority. When she has passed beyond her first attempt at explaining her lack of a penis as being a punishment personal to herself and has realized that that sex character is a universal one, she begins to share the contempt, felt by men for a sex which is the lesser in so Important a respect, and, so far at least as maintaining this judgment is concerned, she clings obstinately to being like a man (p. 137).
It is Important to note that psychoanalytic theory is not the only theory to receive criticism for the manner In which women's develop ment is conceptualized and women's issues are handled. Kaplan and
Yaslnskl (1980) examined the implications for women In therapy of 15
Freudian, Rogerian, and Sullivanian theories. They concluded that in
the areas of theoretical notions and clinical techniques:
Gender bias is ubiquitious, reflected in a masculinist orientation to theory and technique. Although this bias is more explicit in some orientations than in others. It appears in each of them in the form of prescriptions for 'adjustment' to prevailing cultural conditions and imperatives and in developmental theories in which the male is the norm. Specific aspects of the female experience, as viewed from the female's own perspective, are systematically excluded (p. 210),
During the 1970s with the advent of the women's and consumer rights
movement. Increased attention was given to the questionable validity of
many traditional psychological theories and practices related to women.
This focused the attention of psychologists and other mental health
professionals on the sexual exploitation and bias evident in situations
involving female clients.
Although there have been recent attempts to develop a psychology
of women, there remains a wide gap between researched hypotheses and
mere theoretical speculation. Moreover, the majority of current theories
regarding female psychology have also proven to be irrelevant to the
description and explanation of the experiences of black, Chlcano,
poor, elderly, and gay women (Fitzgerald & Nutt, 1986). Thus, the
life experiences of minority and poor women have largely been omitted from the psychology of women, as well as from traditional psychology
(Grlscom, 1979).
It is Important to note that Smith (1980) disagreed with the notion that sex bias has been proven by research to be Inherently pervasive
In counseling and psychotherapy. She used meta-analysis to analyze published and unpublished studies of sex bias in counseling or psycho 16
therapy and concluded that there Is an absence of bias against women
or against nonstereotyped roles for women In studies of either counselors
or psychotherapists. She further stated that, "It Is Insufficient to
prove deleterious effects of counseling and psychotherapy on women
merely by establishing that clinicians hold stereotypes" (p. 393).
She concluded that:
Empirical support for the contention that counseling and psychotherapy are sexist and bad for women is extremely weak.... Motivation to conduct such research of this type was frequently ideological; that is, investigators seemed intent on establishing counselor sexism (a foregone conclusion in many minds). Designs were often weak. Small but statistically significant effects became sweeping, and categori cal conclusions.... Research reviews on this topic tended to be selective (p. 406).
Before an attempt is made to delineate the Important Issues re
lated to more recent theories of counseling women, it is important to
examine a clear definition of what counseling women is all about.
Richardson and Johnson (1984) consider the most common view of counseling
women, female therapists counseling women, as limited and narrow. They
offer an expanded, feminist definition of counseling women with three
major components: values, cognitive foundations, and practical applica
tions. Thus, in their view, counseling women is an applied field that:
1) places equal value on equality between women and men and equality
among women, 2) is committed to understanding women in a societal context, and 3) utilizes models for practice appropriate to an under standing of women in a societal context.
Collier (1982) stated that "recent efforts to develop psychological theories and therapeutic practices which are sex-fair or feminist have the simple aim of counteracting the inequality with which therapists 17
have been trained to view women" (p. 3). More specifically. Collier
(1982) stated that:
Therapy with women should therefore be seen as an inter vention process in which the trained and objective therapist provides a woman with the means of becoming her own change agent, independent of the therapist in the future and capable of making her own confident choices about her situation in the world (p. IS).
Gilbert (1980) compared nonsexist and feminist psychotherapy and
distinguished them by the fact that although feminist therapy, like
nonsexist therapy, advocates equal treatment for women and men, feminist
therapy also incorporates political values and a philosophy of feminism
into its theory and practice. She discussed two major principles of
feminist therapy: 1) the personal is political, and 2) the therapist-
client relationship is viewed as egalitarian. Principle one is in
corporated into practice by the following methods: 1) separating the
internal from the external, 2) validation of the female experience,
3) exploration of values and attitudes by therapists, and 4) an emphasis
on change rather than adjustment. The second principle is put into
practice by: 1) shopping around for a therapist, 2) enhancement of a
sense of personal power, 3) encouraging of self-nurturance, 4) modeling
by the therapist, and 5) expression of anger.
Worrell (1981) discussed new directions in counseling women and
presented the following guidelines for feminist counseling, as sug gested by Brodsky (1973), Lehrman (1974), Maracek, Kravetz, and Finn
(1979), Nutt (1979), Rawlings and Carter (1977), and Worrell (1976):
1. Providing an egalitarian relationship with shared responsi
bility between counselor and client. The client is encouraged 18
to trust her own Judgment and to arrive at her own decisions.
In contrast to many traditional counseling relationships,
the client Is never In a one-down position of having to ac
cept counselor interpretations of her behavior or external
prescriptions for appropriate living.
Employing a consciousness-raising approach. Women are helped
to become aware of the societal restraints on their develop
ment and opportunities. Clients are helped to differentiate
between the politics of the sexist social structure and those
problems over which they have realistic personal control.
Helping women explore a sense of their personal power and how
they can use it constructively In personal, business, and
political relationships.
Helping women to get in touch with unexpressed anger in order
to combat depression and to make choices about how to use their anger constructively.
Helping women to redefine themselves apart from their role rela tionships to men, children, and home; exploring women's fears about potential role changes that may alienate spouse and children, as well as coworkers and boss.
Encouraging women to nurture themselves as well as caring for others, thereby raising self-confidence and self-esteem.
Encouraging multiple skill development to Increase women's competence and productivity. This may Include assertlve- ness training, economic and career skills, and negotiation skills with Important others who resist change (p. 628). 19
These guidelines summarize the key issues evident throughout the
majority of theories related to counseling women. Abandoning the
person-blame, intrapsychic approach that is most damaging to women and
adopting an environmental perspective that recognizes the effects of
socialization appear to be critical in most theories. Those issues
related to women's life experiences involve: 1) role and power issues;
2) women's tendency to nurture others at their own expense; and 3) their
inability, particularly in close relationships, to express anger. It
is the topic of anger and women's ability to express anger that is the
focus of the proposed study.
Women and Anger
Collier (1982) believes that the sources of women's anger are
numerous, including: powerlessness, feminine stereotypes, economic
dependency, discrimination, and the general cultural devaluation of
women. She also believes that our society routinely teaches women not
to express their anger or in some instances to not even feel it.
Thus, Collier believes that most women are taught to hide or suppress
anger, or if necessary, to release anger indirectly. Therefore, many women find anger to be unacceptable, and as discussed by Collier:
It is easier to rationalize that the anger is not Justified, is unimportant, won't do anything but harm, will not make a difference, and will stop all future nurturing. It is easier to ignore it, hold it inside, bury it, relieve it through scrubbing the floor, or condemn oneself (p. 62).
This scenario can result in depression, commonly considered to be a mental health problem of great significance for women, or general 20
feelings of powerlessness over oneself and others.
Lerner (1985) concurs with Collier's beliefs that socialization
and the taboos against women feeling and expressing anger are so power
ful that even recognizing anger is not a simple matter. She believes
that the direct expression of anger, particularly if directed toward
men, is viewed by society as unladylike, unfeminine, unmaternal, sexually
unattractive, and strident. She hypothesizes that when women do ex
perience anger, they begin to ask themselves questions that serve to
block or Invalidate their anger, often leading to guilt, depression,
and self-doubt. Lerner considers these responses to be actions
taken against the self, rather than behavior leading to personal and
social change.
Lerner (1985) divides women who do not manage anger effectively into one or both of the following categories:
1. "Nice Lady" Category = women who attempt to avoid anger
and conflict at all costs.
2. "Bitch" Category « women who get angry with ease, but participate
in ineffective fighting, complaining, and blaming that leads
to no constructive resolutions.
Lerner considers both styles of managing anger as serving equally well to protect others at the expense of a woman's clarity of self.
Both styles also ensure that the relationship or style of communication does not change. Thus, women are left feeling helpless, powerless, and out of control of their lives. This, in turn, has a negative ef fect on a woman's sense of dignity and self-esteem.
Lerner (1985) views the ineffective management of anger as a 21
self-defeating and self-perpetuating cycle. Thus, the more women are
"nice," give in, and go along, the more they accumulate a storehouse
of unconscious anger and rage, and the more they intensify their re
pressive efforts in fear of an eruption should the anger begin to be
let out, until finally things blow up, thereby confirming their
worst fears that anger is indeed irrational and destructive.
Lerner (1985) believes that women who do get angry are faced with
various labels, e.g., "castrating bitch," that society uses to silence
them. These labels and words like unfeminine, nagging, complaining,
and bitching symbolize helplessness and powerlessness, not a position
of strength and change. Thus, being called a "bitch" might shock a
woman into silence or further intensify feelings of injustice and
powerlessness, leading to the possibility of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Miller (1983) also identified this situation as a spiraling phenomenon. Anger feels dangerous to women, therefore, they do not express it. Repeated instances of suppressing this anger leads to frustration and inaction which in turn produces feelings of being weak, unworthy, inferior, and leads to a lack of self-esteem. Women may be left feeling full of anger which seems irrational and unwarranted.
When it is finally expressed, it may be dismissed as hysterical.
Thus, a self-fulfilling prophecy is established.
Miller (1976) believes that anger is an important part of women's powerlessness, thus remaining in a powerless position rescues women from fearsome anger. Therefore, experiencing anger can be very frightening for women. Women have limited, if any, opportunity to test and explore their anger which leads to a fear that their anger 22
Is excessive or unjustified (Miller, 1976).
Lerner (1985) believes that managing anger effectively goes
hand in hand with developing a clear sense of self. Rather than using
anger as a challenge to more closely examine the self, Lerner
hypothesizes that women instead experience anger actually as blurring
what personal clarity they do have. This is compounded by the tendency
of women to betray and sacrifice the self In order to preserve harmony
with others, a process identified by Lerner as de-selfing. This occurs
when too much of one's self Is negotiable under pressure exhibited from
significant relationships. This is a problem particularly important
for women who in many Instances have been taught that exerting oneself
or exhibiting a clear sense of self may threaten or ultimately end a
significant relationship.
In Gestalt terms, clearly defined self-boundaries are essential
to the mental health of the individual; however, women seem to have
more difficulty defining their self-boundaries than do most men (Collier,
1982). This belief is echoed by feminist therapists who view most women
as overly identified with the wants and needs of others, at the expense
of their own development. As is evident from Lerner's (1985) work,
the effects of women's inability to manage anger effectively may be
directly related to women's self-boundaries, and in fact, may directly
inhibit a clear sense of self.
As discussed by Westkott (1986), "disentangling women's rela
tional skills from their dependency and anger is no easy matter"
(p. 219). She feels that a woman's concept of self is affected by
the caring and nurturing characteristics of the feminine personality. 23
compounded by dependency and repressed anger. She considers "the
conflict between compliant nurturance and underlying self-hatred and
rage as the female characterological consequence of the historically
created nurturing imperative" (p. 219).
Lemkau and Landau (1986) refer to women's cultural prescription
of self-denial and fulfillment of the needs of others as the selfless
syndrome. They believe that the affective consequences of this syndrome
for women is difficulty recognizing and expressing anger, which conse
quently finds expression in "nagging," "bitching," passive-aggressive
behavior, and/or depression.
Kaplan, Brooks, McComb, Shapiro, and Sodano (1983) discussed the
"angerogenic" milieu that women live in:
The process of suppression of rage is a constant one, as is the fear that the anger may somehow 'leak out' at the ex pense of women's sense of self in relation to others.... Women, then, live in conditions in which the experience and expression of anger can be a threat to their sense of self and their sense of security with others... (p. 33).
These conditions can ultimately lead to a lack of awareness on the part of women of the basic feeling of anger itself. Instead, women learn to be more sensitive to the needs and feelings of others and focus on issues that maintain and enhance relational ties. Kaplan et al. identify these qualities as becoming a central part of a woman's self-concept, evolving into her relational self as defined by Gilligan
(1982), Miller (1983), and Jordan, Surrey, and Kaplan (1982).
Anger and symptomology
Miller (1983) believes that the inability to manage anger effectively has had disastrous consequences for women, particularly on 24
a psychological level. Miller views women's traditional roles and
Interallzed cultural concepts of femininity as the mechanisms by
which the direct expression of anger by women Is seen as pathological.
Therefore, "probably the most common occurrence... is that the anger
is not conveyed at all. Instead, it is expressed, in the end, via
the only remaining route — 'symptoms', psychic or somatic, the most
common of which is depression" (p. 3).
Lerner (1977) agrees that women have suffered grave psychological
consequences through their attempts to comply with the traditional view
that truly feminine women are devoid of anger and aggressiveness.
She believes that the ability to experience and express a healthy
degree of anger is important to adequate psychological functioning.
However, she points out that in women, far more than in men, anger
frequently becomes thwarted. Inhibited, and misdirected, often leading
to a complex cluster of responses including tears, guilt, anxiety,
and sadness. Many women remain unaware that these symptoms stem from
the suppression or denial of anger.
Bernardez-Bonesatti (1978) discussed the negative effects of our culture's attempt to thwart, inhibit, or divert women's expression of anger;
Anger and the attempts to eradicate it are responsible for most of the symptoms and dysfunctional behaviors that women present nowadays: from depression to inhibition of action and creativity, from apathy to disturbances in sexual behavior. Anger and the social and personal lack of legitimacy of its expression are also responsible in great measure for self-betrayal, self-depreciation, self- destructlveness, and a chronic, bitter resentment that some women are unable to transcend (p. 217). 25
Bernardez-Bonesattl also believes that women who fear anger frequently
express it by tears, guilt, and sorrow, which contaminates or nullifies
the expression of anger. She believes that anger Is the "voice of
self-respect" and is critical to the development of goal-directed
behavior, separation, and self-definition.
Lerner (1980) concurs with this opinion that the expression of
legitimate anger is a statement of dignity, self-respect, and the
willingness to stand alone. This is very difficult for many women who
have been taught that their value stems from their ability to love, be
loved, and gain the approval of others.
Scarf (1980) used a case study to exemplify the "anger-turned-
inward" paradigm which results in depression — a way of experiencing
anger at someone without actually threatening the relationship with
them. This happens because "nice girls don't, as everyone knows,
behave aggressively and display assertive, competitive feelings
openly (better yet... they don't 'have' any such tendencies in their
general personality makeup at all!)" (p. 284). Thus, the origins of
depression for women may stem from anger and rage turned Inward, rather
than being directed at the person who has enraged them.
Recent figures on the prevalence of depressive disorders indicate that
a greater number of women suffer from depressive disorders than men. The most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1987), reports that 9% to
26% of females and 5% to 12% of males have had the disorder and
4.5% to 9.3% of females and 2.3% to 3.2% of males currently have the disorder. The disorder is estimated by the DSM-III-R to be twice 26
as common in female that in male adults in industrialized countries.
Carmen, Russe, and Miller (1984) support this estimate by citing
several studies reporting the two to one ratio (Guttentag, Salasin, &
Belle, 1980; President's Commission on Mental Health, 1978; Guttentag &
Salasin, 1976; Weissman & Klerman, 1977). They cite Belle's (1980)
estimation that in the 24-44 year old age group, the utilization rate
in outpatient services for women is triple that for men.
Recognizing that depression is primarily a woman's disorder, Kaplan
(1986) identified the inhibition of anger (along with vulnerability to
loss, inhibition of action and assertion, and low self-esteem) as a central
dynamic of depression. She further stated that these factors may be "es
sentially distorted aberrations of key aspects of women's normative de
velopment" (p. 234). The developmental importance of a woman's relational
self, that is, sensitivity to the emotions of others and the maintenance
and enhancement of relational ties, can serve to inhibit agentlc action and
the expression of anger (Kaplan, Brooks, McComb, Shapiro, & Sodano, 1983).
Thus, Kaplan believes that anger is perceived by most women as a threat to
the goal of mutually emphatic relationships, and Is therefore constricted,
leading to further feelings of Ineffectiveness, until the anger
explodes in a manner that may be exaggerated or misdirected. Kaplan
considers this pattern In normal women to be greatly exaggerated in
women who are depressed, thus enhancing their feelings of worthless- ness.
Wetzel (1984) hypothesized that the culture has denied women the right to express anger, which has resulted in suppressed rage and superficiality culminating In depression. This occurs because "the 27
suppression of anger. In turn, exacerbates vulnerability to depres
sion for llfe-glvlng energy can be blocked along with the expression
of anger" (p. 78).
Multiple assessments of hostility In depressed and normal women
were obtained by Welssman, Klerman, and Paykel (1971), who found that
depressed women showed Increased hostile behavior toward others,
particularly their spouse and children. Welssman et al. feel that
"treatment geared to helping the patient acknowledge and come to terms with his anger and Its origins and consequences, rather than acting It out, might be effective in rebuilding relationships" (p. 265).
Welssman, Fox, and Klerman (1973) compared 29 acutely depressed and 29 matched suicide attempters. They found that "manifest hostility emerged as an important distinguishing characteristic of the suicide attempters, who had pervasive and overtly hostile relationships, a poor long-term work history, antisocial behavior, and were demanding and hostile during psychiatric interview" (p. 450). They concluded that a depressed patient who is angry, complaining, and hostile may be at risk for a suicide attempt.
Sex differences were found by Frank, Carpenter, and Kupfer (1988) in a group of patients with recurrent depression. The women in their sample reported expressed anger and hostility, in addition to more appetite and weight Increases and more somatization. However, only expressed anger significantly differentiated women from men. In this study, the women's anger-hostility score was significantly higher than the men's at baseline, but similar at later evaluations.
Kellner et al. (1985) observed that hostility and anger have been 28
identified by earlier studies as etiological factors in somatization and
hypochondriasis. The etiological factors cited by Kellner et al.
included: the obscuring of feelings of repressed rage and hurt
pride (Rado, 1956); a concrétisation of fear and self-observation
in an aggressive-regressive ambivalent conflict situation (Brautigam,
1956); oral aggressive tendencies with feelings of guilt (Grosch,
1958); a wish to express hostility (Wahl, 1963); deep-seated aggression
(Tanabe, 1973); and bereavement, loneliness, or unacceptable aggressive
Impulsse (Brown & Vaillant, 1981). Kellner et al. found that somatic
symptoms were positively correlated with anger-hostility; however, they were more strongly associated with symptoms of anxiety and depression
than hostility. They cite an earlier study by Harris (1951) which concluded that depressed women who are prone to somatic symptoms restrain their anger.
Tavris (1982) considered anger to be a social event and not a disease. However, she believes that "contemporary ideas about anger have been fed by the Anger Industry, psychotherapy..." (p. 26). The field of psychotherapy was criticized by Cllne-Naffziger (1974) for reinforcing goals that are oppressive for women. She believes that professionals helping angry women should recognize the reality and justification for women's anger.
While discussing the role of sex bias in therapy. Carmen, Russo, and Miller (1984) concluded that:
Adjustment to traditional roles is stressed and anger in women is often labeled as pathological rather than understood as a consequence of a devalued position. In general, our culture and our psychological theories have viewed women's 29
anger as Inappropriate.... Thus, most women experience considerable psychic conflict about anger (p. 29).
They speculated that most therapists share the dominant cultural
view of fearing or condemning anger In women.
The Issue of how psychology and other mental health professions
have viewed anger In women continues to be a question of prime Im
portance. It Is Interesting to note that of the three personality
disorders diagnosed more frequently In women (Borderline, Histrionic,
and Dependent Personality Disorders), two have some aspect of anger as
one of the main diagnostic criteria. The fourth criterion in the
diagnosis of a Borderline Personality Disorder Is, "Inappropriate,
Intense anger or lack of control of anger" (American Psychiatric
Association, 1987, p. 347). The fourth criterion for the diagnosis of
a Histrionic Personality Disorder Is, "expresses emotion with in
appropriate exaggeration... has temper tantrums" (American Psychiatric
Association, 1987, p. 349). The prevalence of these disorders are considered to be common. The question remains, do women deal with anger pathologically, or is the expression of anger by women merely viewed as pathological?
Sex Role Issues
Throughout the previous sections and topics discussed, the ef fects of sex role Issues have been raised. As is apparent, sex stereotyping is a pervasive phenomenon in American society (Phares,
1984). For many years, psychological attributes of femininity and masculinity were conceptualized along physiological lines and 30
were viewed as a basic genetic destiny (Cook, 1987). As stated by Bern
(1981), "Both in psychology and In society at large, femininity and
masculinity have long been conceptualized as opposite ends of a single
bipolar dimension" (p. 4). This viewpoint began to change when In
1973, Constantinople completed a comprehensive review of the major
testa of masculinity-femininity (M-F) and determined that the bi-
polarlty assumption of femininity and masculinity was Inadequate. More
specifically, Constantinople (1973) provided evidence questioning the
validity of the three major assumptions about the M-F construct:
1) that it Is best defined in terms of sex differences in item responses,
2) that it is a single bipolar dimension, and 3) that related to its uni-
dlmensional nature, it can be adequately measured by a single score. This
opened the door for the work of Bern (1974) and Spence, Helmrelch,
and Stapp (1975). These investigators reconceptuallzed femininity
and masculinity from their former positions at opposite ends of a
single bipolar dimension to orthogonal factors.
This new line of thinking produced the concept of androgyny.
As discussed by Bem (1981):
More recently, however, scholars in a number of disciplines have begun to concern themselves with the concept of psychologi cal androgyny, a term that denotes the integration of femininity and masculinity within a single Individual. The concept of psychological androgyny Implies that it is possible for an individual to be both compassionate and assertive, both expressive and instrumental, both feminine and masculine, depending on the situational ap propriateness of these various modalities (p. 4).
Issues related to femininity and masculinity were now viewed from a classification system utilizing four categories: feminine, masculine. 31
androgynous, and undifferentiated. Subjects scoring high on the
feminine scale and low on the masculine scale were classified as
feminine. Oppositely, subjects scoring high on the masculine scale
and low on the feminine scale were classified as masculine. Subjects
scoring high on both scales were classified as androgynous and those
scoring low on both scales were classified as undifferentiated.
The work of Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, and
Vogel (1970) raised the idea that our society considered masculine,
and not feminine, traits to be associated with good mental health.
Bem (1974, 1975, 1981) believes that sex-typed individuals have in
ternalized society's sex-typed standards and cultural definitions of
sex-appropriate behavior. She stated that:
The traditionally sex-typed person is motivated to keep her or his behavior consistent with an idealized image of femininity or masculinity, a goal that she or he presumably accomplishes both by selecting behaviors and attributes that enhance the image and by avoiding behaviors and at tributes that violate the image (1981, p. 4).
Thus, "a nonandrogynous sex role can seriously restrict the range of
behaviors available to an individual as he or she moves from situation
to situation" (Bem, 1975, p. 634).
In contrast, the androgynous individual Is less attuned to
society's sex-typed standards and sex-appropriate behavior and therefore
less likely to regulate her or his behavior accordingly (Bem, 1981).
This flexibility of androgynous individuals is considered by many - to
be indicative of sound mental health. Phares (1984) summarized the relationships between androgyny and adjustment and found that androgyny has been associated with: 32
1. higher levels of psychosocial development (Waterman &
Whltebourne, 1982),
2. happiness; tendency to regard stressful experiences as less
undesirable (Shaw, 1982),
3. psychological well-being (hypothesis partially supported)
(Lubinski, Tellegen, & Butcher, 1981),
4. being perceived by others as adjusted (Major, Carnevale,
& Deaux, 1981),
5. higher self-esteem and perceptions by others as competent
(for females only) (Heilbrun, 1981), and
6. adjustment and perceived homeostatic balance with the
environment (Flaherty & Dusek, 1980) (p. 606).
Thus, it would appear that sex role issues have a significant ef fect on various aspects of mental health. Therefore, it seems ap propriate for research to expand the study of gender differences to include the evaluation of sex-role differences. Based on this premise, the present study has included an examination of both gender and sex-role differences. The original question related to dif ferences in how women and men experience and express anger, has now been expanded to address the effects of sex-role differences. Is it possible that androgyny, and not gender, is the critical variable involved in the healthy expression of anger resulting in sound mental health? 33
Summary
Critical factors related to women's life experiences and their re
lationship with psychology have gained more attention In recent years.
These Issues came Into focus as many of the traditional practices of
mainstream psychology related to treating women were being closely
scrutinized. This new focus led to the development of a new field In
psychology — the psychology of women. Thus, Increased attention and
effort was given to the Investigation of sexism In psychotherapy and
recommendations for corrective action and ethical Imperatives. New
directions and guidelines for counseling women were formulated.
One of the key Issues evident throughout the majority of theories
related to counseling women Is the expression of anger. An under
lying theme related to women and anger Is the differences which
exist In this experience for women as compared to men. Carmen, Russo,
and Miller (1984) believe that "most women do not aspire to the forms
of anger seen In men" (p. 29). They attribute this to the environment
and the "dominant cultural fear of anger In women" (p. 29). There also exists a prevailing hypothesis that women have difficulty recog nizing and expressing their anger. This difficulty is viewed as re sulting in psychological symptomology, the most common being depres sion. However, there is little empirical evidence to support this hypothesis.
Research reviewed was selected to contribute background information and to highlight Issues surrounding women and anger. Major themes of research reported included: 1) the psychology of women, 2) ethical 34
Issues In the psychology of women, 3) counseling women, 4) women and
anger, and 5) sex role issues. There remains a wide gap between re searched hypotheses and mere theoretical speculation. 35
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Much has been written about the psychology of women and treatment
methods designed to address significant aspects of women's lives. The
expression of anger remains a topic of central Importance. The
prevailing belief Is that women experience anger differently than men. It Is also believed that women have more difficulty than men recognizing and expressing anger, resulting In such psychological consequences as depression, guilt, dependency, passive-aggressiveness, conflict avoidance, resentment, and a lack of self-confidence. Authors have proposed various reasons for this difficulty including socializa tion, the psychological consequences of penis-envy, "de-selfIng," the "nurturing Imperative," the "selfless syndrome," living in an
"angerogenlc" milieu, and possibly a "distorted aberration of women's normative development." However, the empirical foundation for such speculation is lacking. The central issue remains — do women experience anger differently than men and, are women, unlike men, more likely to express anger ineffectively?
As previously indicated, there is a dearth of empirical investiga tions focusing on this issue. Many of the older studies focusing on the psychological treatment of women are plagued by methodological problems, thereby making their conclusions suspect. Very few of the conclusions in the literature reviewed were empirically based. Those that were, focused on the study of hostility. As discussed by
Splelberger, Jacobs, Russell, and Crane (1983), "anger, that is, the phenomenological experience of angry feelings, has been largely 36
neglected In psychological research" (p. 160). No empirical research
was found which focused on the relationship of anger and Its effects
on women.
The primary purpose of this study was to Investigate a series of
hypotheses related to women's experience and expression of anger. It
further examined prevailing beliefs surrounding the psychological
consequences of women's expression of anger which have not been empiri
cally validated. Finally, the role of gender and sex role differences
were examined by including both women and men in the population of
study and determining their sex-role classification.
Gender differences were examined as a way to investigate the
belief that women and men experience anger differently. In their
discussion of gender and psychotherapeutic outcome, Orlinsky and
Howard (1980) state that "Gender is relevant... Insofar as the lives
and persons of women are different from the lives and persons of men"
(p. 20). They recommend that research "Identify the descriptive dimen sions of the patient's life and person that are salient for women and men as patients, as well as those that are differentially relevant to men and women in contemporary society" (p. 31). Sex role differences also were examined to provide a more specific and comprehensive study.
The goals of the proposed study were twofold. The first goal was to investigate the belief that women have more difficulty than men expressing anger and that they frequently express it through symptoms of depression. This commonly held belief, although cited frequently in the literature, lacks empirical backing. The second goal was to 37
Investigate the conclusion that women who have difficulty expressing anger are subject to negative effects on important aspects of mental health in cluding: a lack of self-confidence, passive-aggressiveness, conflict avoidance, dependency, resentment, and guilt. Again, this conclusion has been frequently presented in the literature without empirical support.
The same two questions were addressed from the perspective of sex roles differences.
A secondary purpose of the proposed study was to examine gender and sex role differences in the experience and expression of anger. Although a few studies have been conducted using male and female subjects, these studies were limited to data obtained in the development of anger assess ment instruments. These studies did not examine contemporary speculations regarding the psychological consequences of anger expression, nor did they include an examination of the effects of sex role classification. Addi tionally, measures of hostility, aggressiveness, and assertiveness were in cluded in this study to explore possible relationships and gender and sex role differences that may exist between these variables and anger.
The specific hypotheses investigated are as follows:
1) Women have more difficulty than men recognizing and ex
pressing their anger. Likewise, individuals with a feminine
sex-role will have more difficulty than other sex-role types
recognizing and expressing their anger.
2) Women are more likely than men to suppress anger. Likewise,
individuals with a feminine sex-role are more likely than
other sex-role types to suppress anger.
3) Women are more likely than men to control the experience and 38
expression of angry feelings. Likewise, Individuals with a
feminine sex-role are more likely than other sex-role types
to control the experience of angry feelings.
4) Women are more likely than men to express anger In terms of
depressive symptoms. Likewise, Individuals with a feminine
sex-role are more likely than other sex-role types to ex
press anger In terms of depressive symptoms.
5) Women who have difficulty expressing anger are more likely
than men who have difficulty expressing anger to experience
negative effects on Important aspects of mental health. These
negative effects Include: a lack of self-confidence, de
pendency, passive-aggressiveness, conflict avoidance, guilt,
and resentment. Likewise, individuals with a feminine sex-
role are more likely than other sex-role types to experience
negative effects on important aspects of mental health.
Past conceptual ambiguity has often led to methodological ambiguity in the measurement of anger. Splelberger, Jacobs, Russell, and Crane
(1983) believe that definitions of anger and hostility are often ambiguous and sometimes contradictory. They offer the following defini tion of anger:
Anger is generally considered to be a simpler concept than hostility or aggression. The concept of anger usually refers to an emotional state that consists of feelings that vary in intensity, from mild Irritation or annoyance to fury and rage. Although hostility usually Involves angry feelings, this concept has the connotation of a complex set of attitudes that motivate aggressive behaviors directed toward destroying subjects or injuring other people. While anger and hostility refer to feelings and attitudes, the concept of aggression generally implies 39
destruction or punitive behavior directed towards other persons or objects (p. 160).
Splelberger et al. (1983) believe that the measurement of anger has not received as much attention as the measurement of hostility and many Instruments confound anger and hostility. The proposed study attempted to avoid this ambiguity by using Instruments specifically designed to measure anger, hostility, aggressiveness, and assertlveness.
In this manner, data from all of these areas were examined for possible relationships among these concepts. This, In turn, provided a more comprehensive study of the female experience of anger. 40
METHOD
Subjects
The subjects for this study were 456 college students from Iowa
State University, a large mldwestern university located in central
Iowa. Subjects volunteered to participate in the study in return for
extra credit in their introductory psychology courses. Originally,
495 students participated; however, the data from 39 subjects were
eliminated due to a lack of English fluency, large numbers of missing
data points, or scores indicating an invalid or unlnterpretable profile.
Demographic data are presented in Table 1 and summarized below.
Two hundred and forty-two of the subjects were female (53.2%),
213 were male (46.8%), and one was unspecified. One hundred and seventy-
seven subjects were freshmen (39.3%), 141 were sophomores (31.3%),
95 were juniors (21.1%), 35 were seniors (7.8%), two were classified
as other (0.4%), and six were unspecified.
The racial composition of the sample consisted of 391 caucaslan subjects (85.9%), 16 black subjects (3.5%), two hispanlc subjects
(0.4%), 26 native American subjects (5.7%), 15 oriental subjects
(3.3%), five subjects classified as other (1.1%), and one subject whose race was left unspecified. Subjects ranged in age from 18 years to 54 years old. Eighty-one subjects were 18 years old (17.8%), 145 were 19 (31.9%), 108 were 20 (23.7%), 51 were 21 (11.2%), 29 were
22 (6.4%), 14 were 23 (3.1%), 4 were 24 (0.9%), 23 were 25 or older
(5.1%), and one subject's age was unspecified. Four hundred and thirty- nine subjects were single and never married (94.9%), one subject was 41a
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of subjects
Grade Frequency Percent
Unspecified 6 Freshman 177 39.3 Sophomore 141 31.3 Junior 95 21.1 Senior 35 7.8 Other 2 0.4
Sex Frequency Percent
Unspecified 1 — Women 242 53.2 Men 213 46.8
Race Frequency Percent
Unspecified 1 — Caucasian 391 85.9 Black 16 3.5 Hispanic 2 0.4 Native American 26 5.7 Oriental 15 3.3 Other 5 1.1
Age Frequency Percent
Unspecified 1 — 18 81 17.8 19 145 31.9 20 108 23.7 21 51 11.2 22 29 6.4 23 14 3.1 24 4 0.9 25 or older 23 5.1 Marital status Frequency Percent
Unspecified 1 — Single — never married 432 94.9 Single — separated 1 0.2 Divorced 3 0.7 Married 16 3.5 Widowed 1 0.2 Living with significant other 2 0.4 41b
Table 1. Continued
Father's education Frequency Percent
Unspecified 1 — Less than high school 37 8.1 High school graduate 131 28.8 Some college 72 15.8 College graduate 215 47.3
Mother's education Frequency Percent
Unspecified 1 — Less than high school 20 4.4 High school graduate 154 33.8 Some college 112 24.6 College graduate 169 37.1
Parental home Frequency Percent
Unspecified 5 — Severe discord 10 2.2 Divorce 58 12.9 Death of parent 19 4.2 Death of sibling 8 1.8 Severe economic difficulty 14 3.1 Other stress 13 2.9 None of the above 329 72.9
Place of childhood Frequency Percent
Unspecified 2 — Urban 122 26.9 Suburban 157 34.6 Rural 170 37.4 Other 5 1.1 42
single and currently separated (0.2%), three subjects were divorced
(0.7%), 16 were married (3.5%), one subject was widowed (0.2%), two
were living with a significant other (0.4%), and one subject's marital
status was unspecified.
Information regarding their parents' level of education Indicated
that 37 subjects had a father with less than a high school education
(8.1%), 131 subjects had fathers who were high school graduates (28.8%),
72 subjects had a father with some college (15.8%), 215 had a father
who was a college graduate (47.3%), and one subject failed to specify
their father's education level. Twenty students had a mother with
less than a high school education (4.4%), 154 subjects had mothers who were high school graduates, 112 had mothers with some college
(24.6%), 169 had mothers who were college graduates (37.1%), and one subject failed to specify their mother's education level.
Information about stressors in their parental home indicated that 10 subjects described their parental home as having severe dis cord (2.2%), 58 subjects identified divorce (12.9%), 19 had ex perienced the death of a parent (4.2%), eight had experienced the death of a sibling (1.8%), 14 subjects identified severe economic difficulty present in their parent's home (3.1%), 13 subjects listed other unspecified stressors as being present in their parental home, and 329 (72.9%) subjects reported none of the above stressors as being present in their parental home (72.9%). Five subjects failed to respond to this question.
Information about the location of subjects' place of childhood revealed that 122 subjects grew up in an urban area (26.9%), 157 grew 43
up In a suburban area (34.6%), 170 grew up In a rural area (37.4%),
five grew up in another type of setting (1.1%), and two subjects failed
to specify their place of childhood.
Materials
A test booklet was completed by each subject (see Appendix A).
The first page of this booklet contained a consent form which was
completed by all participants. The next page consisted of a "feedback
sheet" designed for any subject wishing to obtain detailed Information
regarding the study and feedback regarding their individual results.
The third page provided instructions for completing the test booklet.
The remainder of the testing booklet consisted of several instruments
Including: a demographic questionnaire, State-Trait Anger Scale
(Spielberger et al., 1979), Anger Expression Scale (Spielberger, Johnson,
Russell, Crane, Jacobs, & Worden, 1985), Beck Depression Inventory
(Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961), Bem Sex-Role Inventory
(Bern, 1974), Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (Buss & Durkee, 1957),
and the Interpersonal Behavior Survey (Mauger, Adklnson, Zoss, Firestone,
& Hook, 1980). A brief description of each instrument is provided in
the following sections.
Demographic questionnaire
This Instrument was designed by the researcher to collect demographic
information on all subjects, including sex, race, age, marital status. 44
parents' educational level, characteristics of parental home, and
place of childhood.
State-Trait Anger Scale (STAS)
A rational-empirical approach was used In developing the STAS,
which was designed to assess the Intensity of anger as an emotional
state and individual differences in proneness to anger as a personality
trait (Spielberger, 1980; Spielberger, Jacobs, Russell, & Crane,
1983; Spielberger, Johnson, Russell, Crane, Jacobs, & Worden, 1985).
Thus, Spielberger and his colleagues (1980, 1983, 1985) defined anger
by dividing it into state (S-Anger) and trait anger (T-Anger):
State anger (S-Anger) was defined as an emotional state or condition that consists of subjective feelings of tension, annoyance, irritation, fury, and rage, with concommltant activation or arousal of the automatic nervous system.... S-Anger can vary in intensity and fluctuate over time as a function of perceived affronts or injustice, or frustration resulting from the blocking of goal-directed behavior. Trait anger (T-Anger) was defined in terms of individual differences in the frequency that S-Anger was experienced over time... persons high in T-Anger were more likely to perceive a wide range of situations as anger-provoking (e.g., annoying. Irritating, frustrating), and to respond to such situations with elevations in state anger (Spielberger, Jacobs, Russell, & Crane, 1983, p. 166).
A preliminary form of the STAS was administered to college students and Navy recruits (Barker, 1979; Westberry, 1980) to facilitate final item selection. Items with the best psychometric properties and the highest Internal consistency as reflected in item-remainder correla tions, were used in the final form (Spielberger et al., 1985). Items were also selected based on their relatively low correlations with measures of anxiety and curiosity (Spielberger et al., 1983).
To ensure a high degree of Internal consistency In the T-Anger 45
scale for both males and females, Item-remainder correlations for both
sexes were computed separately (Splelberger, 1980). The mean, standard
deviation, and alpha coefficient for male college students were 31.04,
7.30, and .87, respectively. Female college students obtained similar
results; mean " 30.96, standard deviation - 7.46, and an alpha coefficient of .87. Similar data also were collected on Navy recruits.
Male recruits obtained a mean of 31.66, standard deviation of 7.63, and an alpha coefficient of .87. Female recruits obtained a mean of
30.10, a standard deviation of 6.92, and an alpha coefficient of .84.
In developing the S-Anger scale, data were obtained from male and female Navy recruits. Males obtained a mean of 27.14, a standard deviation of 9.39, and an alpha coefficient of .93. Females obtained a mean of 23.56, a standard deviation of 10.52 and an alpha coefficient of .93.
Correlations on individual S-Anger and T-Anger items with measures of anxiety (Splelberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970) and curiosity
(Splelberger, Peters, & Fraln, 1981) were substantially higher than origi nally anticipated by the test authors, particularly for the S-Anger items.
The median item-correlation between the S-Anger scale and S-Anxlety was .49 for males and .52 for females. The correlation of S-Anger with
S-Curiosity was -.42 for males and -.16 for females. The median item- correlations for the T-Anger scale and T-Anxiety were .30 for males and .19 for females. The correlations of T-Anger with T-Curloslty were -.23 for males and -.21 for females. Splelberger et al. (1983)
Interpreted these findings as suggestive of "an intrinsic relationship between anger and anxiety that cannot readily be eliminated from 46
psychometric measures of these constructs" (p. 169).
The final form of the STAS, consisting of 30 Items, was used In
the present study. On the first 15 Items measuring state anger,
subjects Indicated their present feelings by responding to a series
of statements using a 4-polnt scale; "not at all" (1), "somewhat" (2),
"moderately so" (3), and "very much so" (4). The remaining 15 Items
measured trait anger. Subjects Indicated how they generally feel
by responding to a series of statements also using a 4-polnt scale;
"almost never" (1), "sometimes" (2), "often" (3), and "almost always"
(4). Scale scores were computed by summing the scores for each of the
15 Items comprising each scale. Possible scores for each scale of the
STAS range from a minimum of 15 to a maximum of 10.
Anger Expression (AX) Scale
Splelberger designed the AX as "a unldlmenslonal self-report rating
scale to assess anger expression as a personality trait" (Splelberger
et al., 1985, p. 14). The definition of anger expression used in
this scale was developed after the authors examined the literature in
this area:
Anger expression is implicitly defined by Funkenstein et al. (1954), Harburg et al. (1973), and Gentry et al. (1982) as a unldlmenslonal construct. In developing a scale to as sess this construct, low scores should indicate extreme 'anger in,' resulting from marked suppression and inhibi tion of anger, and high scores should indicate extreme 'anger out' which may be reflected in a variety of aggressive behaviors (Splelberger et al., 1985, p. 13).
A preliminary version of the AX Scale was administered to 1114 male and female high school students. Based on the results of this 47
study, three items were eliminated, item-remainder correlations for
each of the 30 AX items were computed, and a factor analysis completed
to determine if meaningful subscales existed. Spielberger et al. (1985)
concluded that the AX items were tapping two relatively independent
underlying dimensions, i.e., anger-in and anger-out, rather than a
unldimensional, bipolar measure of anger expression. Therefore, further analyses were completed to develop separate subscales for measuring anger-In and anger-out.
Eight items with uniformly high loadings for both sexes on the
Anger/In factor (.52 to .72) and negligible loadings on the Anger/Out factor (-.16 to .17) were selected for the Anger/In subscale. Similarly, eight items with uniformly high loadings for both sexes on the Anger/Out factor (.44 to .72) and negligible loadings on the Anger/In factor
(-.12 to .17) were selected for the Anger/Out subscale.
The factor analysis also indicated that a third factor was evident which related to anger control and/or resistance to becoming angry
(Spielberger et al., 1985). Pollans (1983) Investigated this factor in a study of college students and found evidence of an anger control factor for males, but not for females. The results indicated that for females, the anger control and Anger/Out Items load on the same factor, suggesting that college women who overtly express anger have stronger control over their angry feelings. A total anger expression score also Is generated by the Instrument as a linear combination of the three subscales.
Internal consistency was evaluated by computing alpha coefficients and item-remainder correlations. The alpha coefficients for the AX/EX 48
scale were .80 for males and .77 for females, for the AX/In subscale
.84 for males and .81 for females, and for the AX/Out subscale .73
for males and .75 for females. The Item-remainder correlations for
the AX/EX scale were heterogeneous, ranging from .14 to .56 (Splel-
berger et al., 1985). The median Item-correlation was .53 for the
Anger/In subscale and .435 for the Anger/Out subscale.
Evidence for convergent and divergent validity of the AX and
Its subscales was reported by Splelberger et al. (1985) using the
Harburg et al. (1973) questionnaire and Splelberger et al. (1979)
State-Trait Personality Inventory. Splelberger et al. (1985) con
cluded:
In all six analyses, the highly significant F-ratlos for the Anger In/out variables Indicated that students classified as 'anger out' on the basis of how they Indicated they would cope with the anger-provoking situations described In the vignettes had substantially higher AX/Out and AX/EX total scores, and substantially lower scores on the Ax/ln sub- scale, than students classified as 'anger-in'.... The analysis of the AX scores of students classified as 'anger-in' and 'anger-out' on the basis of the modified Harburg procedure provides evidence of the concurrent and construct validity of the AX and its subscales. Differences in the AX scores of males and females classified as 'anger- In' and 'anger-out' according to the Harburg criteria, especially, the Anger by Sex Interactions, suggest that males and females may respond differently to different types of anger-provoking situations (p. 20).
Further evidence of the convergent and divergent validity of the
AX and its subscales was reported by Splelberger et al. (1985) in
relation to the State-Trait Personality Inventory. Moderately high
correlations of the AX/ln and AX/Out subscales with the State-Trait
Personality Inventory trait anger measures were reported, ranging from
.24 to .58. Correlations of the AX scales with the STPI state anger 49
measures were relatively small, ranging from .09 to .24 (Splelberger
et al., 1985). The ÂX/In and AX/Out subscales were more highly cor
related with the STPI anger scales than was the AX/EX total anger expres
sion scale (Splelberger et al., 1985). The correlations of all three
AX measures with the STPI Trait and State Curiosity scales were essentially
zero (-.08 to .06), providing some evidence of the divergent validity
of the AX scales. Correlations of the AX scales were also computed with trait anxiety (.00 to .30) and state anxiety (-.14 to .28).
The final form of the AX was used In the present study which con sists of 24 Items designed to measure "how people generally react or behave when they feel angry or furious" (Splelberger, 1986). Subjects
Indicated how often they generally reacted or behaved when angry or furious In the manner described In each statement. Subjects respond using a 4-polnt scale, "almost never" (1), "sometimes" (2), "often"
(3), and "almost always" (4).
The AX Scale yields four different scores: 1) the anger expres sion score (AX/EX) — a general Index of how often anger Is aroused and expressed or suppressed, 2) anger-out (AX/Out) — the tendency to express anger toward other people or objects in the environment,
3) anger-in (AX/In) — the tendency to experien-e anger but to hold it in (suppress), and 4) anger-control (AX/Con) — the tendency to control the experience and expression of anger. It should be noted that the
AX/EX scale Is calculated by combining the AX/Out and the AX/In score, subtracting the AX/Con score from that total, and adding a constant (16) to eliminate negative scores. 50
Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI)
A rational-empirical approach was used by Buss and Durkee (1957)
In the development of the BDHI. Good test-retest reliability data
have been reported Including test-retest reliability coefficients
ranging from .64 to .82 (Blagglo, Suppléé, & Curtis, 1981) and .82
for the Total Hostility score (Splelberger et al., 1983). The validity
of the BDHI was discussed by Splelberger et al. (1983):
Evidence of the validity of the BDHI has been reported In studies of the perception of violence (Petzel & Michaels, 1973), the effects of smoking deprivation on hostility and aggression (Schechter & Rand, 1974), and aggressive behavior as reflected In the administration of shock (Knott, 1970). The BDHI has also proved useful in the assessment of hostility in male psychiatric patients (Young, 1976), and in violent and nonviolent chronic alcohol abusers (Renson, Adams, & Tlnklenberg, 1978) (p. 163).
Blagglo et al. (1981) concluded that "the BDHI provides a global
impression of hostile feelings and tendency to act-out anger but
the subscales do not seem to possess a high degree of discriminant
validity" (p. 647). Buss and Durkee (1957) reported that "none of the
women's correlations and only two of the men's Interscale correlations,
are above .50, which suggests that the various scales are tapping at least partially Independent behaviors" (p. 347). The correlation matrices for men and women as reported by Buss and Durkee are presented in Table 2.
The BDHI consists of 75 statements designed to assess various as pects of hostility. Subjects respond to a series of statements by indicating if the statement is true or false as it applies to them selves. The BDHI assesses seven dimensions of hostility: Table 2. Correlational matrices for the Buss Durkee Hostility Inventory
Table of Intercorrelatlons for Women
Indirect Verbal Variable Assault hostility Irritability Negativism Resentment Suspicion hostility
Indirect hostility .38 Irritability .30 .31 Negativism .27 .34 .29 Resentment .14 .23 .30 .23 Suspicion .11 .19 .30 .15 .45 Verbal hostility .37 .19 .44 .30 .22 .21 Guilt -.07 .05 .16 .01 .33 .27 .10
Table of Intercorrelatlons for Men
Indirect Verbal Variable Assault hostility Irritability Negativism Resentment Suspicion hostility
Indirect hostility .28 Irritability .32 .44 Negativism .30 .27 .20 Resentment .16 .33 .44 .31 Suspicion .11 .27 .26 .38 .58 Verbal hostility .40 .40 .66 .25 .37 .21 Guilt -.03 .28 .24 .08 .27 .25 .16 52
assault, indirect hostility. Irritability, negativism, resentment,
suspicion, and verbal hostility. An additional scale measuring guilt
is also Included.
Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)
The revised version of the BDI Is a self-admlnlstered measure of
an Individual's depression developed by Beck (1978). The BDI has been
widely used for clinical and research purposes since its introduction
by Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, and Erbaugh (1961). In their study of
psychiatric patients. Beck et al. (1961) reported split-half reliability
of .93. Beck and Steer (1984) conducted a study of the original and
revised forms using psychiatric patients and concluded that both pos
sessed high levels of internal consistency. The alpha coefficients
for this sample were .88 for the 1961 form and .86 for the 1978 ver
sion.
Reynolds and Gould (1981) investigated the psychometric charac
teristics of the standard and short form BDI with substance abusers.
They reported adequate Internal consistency reliability for both forms;
.85 for the standard form and .83 for the short form. Their correla
tional results with criterion variables also supported the validity
of both BDI forms. Significant correlations were obtained between the
standard and short forms and the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale
(1974) (rs • .57 and .58, £ < .001) and the UCLA Loneliness Scale developed by Russell, Peplau, and Ferguson (1978) (rs = .42 and .47,
2 < .01). Based on these results, Reynolds and Gould (1981) concluded that as validity coefficients, the correlations between the BDI, Zung, 53
and UCLA Loneliness Scale were "quite substantial," thereby supporting
convergent validity.
Campbell, Burgess, and Finch (1984) cited many studies reflecting
the moderate to high validity coefficients usually obtained using
the BDl:
For example, in relation to clinical observer ratings of depression, the BDI correlates from .65 (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961; Metcalfe & Goldman, 1964) to .77 (Beck & Beamesderfer, 1974); in relation to other scale and inventory measures, Schwab, Blalow, and Holzer (1967) found .75 correlation with the Hamilton Rating Scale (HRS) (p. 992)
Schaefer et al. (1985) Investigated the Internal consistency
of the BDl, reporting an alpha coefficient of .94 for psychiatric
patients and .88 for chemical dependency patients. All correlations
between the Beck, Zung, and MMPl depression scales were significant
at the .05 level.
For the purposes of this study, the revised version of the BDI
(Beck, 1978) was used. With this form, subjects respond to a series of
21 items, each item containing a series of four statements. Subjects
are instructed to circle the number beside the one statement in each
group that describes the way they have been feeling during the past
week. If subjects find that several of the statements in a group
apply equally well to themselves, they are allowed to circle more more than one. Scores for each item are totalled, based on an Intensity rating of zero to three. This total is then used to calculate the depression score. Thus, the potential range of scores is 0 to 63 with higher scores reflecting the more severe depression. The specific symptom or attitude tapped by each item Is as follows: 1) sadness, 54
2) pessimism, 3) sense of failure, 4) dissatisfaction, 5) guilt,
6) expectations of punishment, 7) self-dlsllke, 8) self-accusation,
9) suicidal Ideas, 10) crying, 11) Irritability, 12) social withdrawal,
13) Indeclsiveness, 14) body Image change, 15) work difficulty,
16) Insomnia, 17) fatigability, 18) loss of appetite, 19) weight loss,
20) somatic preoccupation, and 21) loss of libido.
Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI)
The BSRI was developed by Bem (1974) to treat "masculinity and femininity as two independent dimensions, thereby making it possible to characterize a person as masculine, feminine, or 'androgynous' as a function of the difference between his or her endorsement of masculine and feminine personality characteristics" (p. 155). The
BSRI "was designed to implement empirical research on psychological androgyny" (Bem, 1981, p. 4). Bem (1979) originally developed the
BSRI based on two theoretical assumptions: 1) the culture has clustered a quite heterogeneous collection of characteristic and desirable at tributes into two mutually exclusive categories for each sex, and
2) individuals differ in the extent to which they utilize these at tributes as idealized standards. Items for the BSRI were selected on the basis of judges' ratings of the culturally defined desirability of various attributes for each sex, rather than on the previous method of establishing sex differences through self-report (Bem, 1979).
The original BSRI contains 60 personality characteristics; 20 that were stereotypically feminine and 20 that served as filler Items.
The initial BSRI used the filler items to yield a measure of a subject's 55
tendency to respond In a socially desirable fashion. Based on research
results, this procedure was later abandoned. Bern (1981) instituted
four major changes In the original BSRl:
1. A short, 30-ltem form was developed.
2. The androgyny t-ratlo originally used to classify Individuals
was eliminated.
3. The recommendation that subjects be classified Into four
distinct sex-role groups. I.e., feminine, masculine, androgynous,
and undifferentiated, based on a median split was advocated.
4. The filler items served only as context for the feminine
and masculine items.
The instrument is arranged so the first 30 items comprise the
short form. Subjects are asked to indicate on a seven-point scale how
true each characteristic is of them. The scale ranges from 1 ("never
or almost never true") to 7 ("always or almost always true"). A
score can then be obtained for each subject on both the femininity and
masculinity scales and their sex-role classification determined
based on a median split. Researchers can use the median scores from
Bern's normative sample or utilize the median splits from their own
sample population. In fact, Bern (1981) advocates utilizing the sample's own medians if the sample is large enough and contains both males and females. Based on the median splits, four sex-role classifications are possible: feminine, masculine, androgynous, and undifferentiated. Subjects scoring high on the feminine scale and low on the masculine scale are classified as feminine. Oppositely, 56
subjects scoring high on the masculine scale and low on the female
scale are classified as masculine. Subjects scoring high on both
scales are classified as androgynous and those scoring low on both
scales are classified as undifferentiated.
Bem (1981) reported the psychometric analyses of the BSRI on two
samples of subjects. The first sample Included 279 females and 444
males and the second sample Included 340 females and 476 males. Both
samples consisted of undergraduate students In Introductory Psychology
at Stanford University who completed the Original and Short BSRI.
The first sample was obtained in 1973 and the second in 1978.
On the Original BSRI, for the first sample, the coefficient alpha
scores for the femininity and masculinity scales were .75 and .87
for females and .78 and .86 for males. For the second sample, coeffi cient alpha scores for the femininity and masculinity scales were .78 and .86 for females and .78 and .87 for males.
On the Short BSRI, for the first sample, the coefficient alpha scores for the femininity and masculinity scales were .84 and .84 for females and .87 and .85 for males. For the second sample, coeffi cient alpha scores for the femininity and masculinity scales were .84 and .86 for females and .87 and .85 for males.
Test-retest reliabilities for the femininity and masculinity scores were computed using product-moment correlations between the first and second test administrations. For the Original BSRI, the femininity and masculinity scores for females were .82 and .94 and for males .89 and .76. For the Short BSRI, the femininity and masculinity scores for the females were .85 and .91 and for males .91 and .76. 57
The femininity and/or masculinity scales of the BSRI have been
correlated with gender-related behaviors in numerous validation studies
(Lippa, 1985). The BSRI has also been reported by Lippa (1985) to
display good Internal consistency and reliability. Factor analytic
studies of the BSRI typically report that the scales are not factorlally
pure (Lippa, 1985). Payne (1985) criticized the BSRI scales for being
factorlally complex and not covering a full range of ways in which
males and females can differ stereotypically in our society. He also
questioned the notion that they tap the gender-based schematic processing
described by Bern. Payne (1985) advocated the use of the short form:
The Short BSRI therefore is not just a short form of the Original BSRI, it is a psychometrlcally superior, factorlally purer index of 'instrumental' and 'expressive' traits. It should be chosen over the Original BSRI, and not just for 'convenience' in scoring (p. 179).
Payne (1985) described the Short BSRI as having good test-retest and
internal consistency reliability.
The present study utilized the short form of the BSRI. Subjects were classified by sex role based on the median splits of the present
study's sample.
Interpersonal Behavior Survey (IBS)
The IBS was developed by Mauger, Adklnson, Zoss, Firestone, and
Hook (1980) "to distinguish assertive behaviors from aggressive behaviors and to sample subclasses of these behaviors" (Mauger & Adklnson, 1980, p. 1). Scales forming four major categories are Included in the IBS:
1) validity, 2) aggressiveness, 3) assertlveness, and 4) relationship.
The validity scores, which reflect the subject's test-taking attitudes. 58
denial, Infrequency, and Impression management. The aggressiveness
scales measure the general response class of aggressiveness Including:
general aggressiveness, hostile stance, expression of anger, disregard
for rights, verbal aggressiveness, physical aggressiveness, and passive
aggressiveness. The assertlveness scales measure the general response
class of assertlveness Including: general assertlveness, self-
confidence, Initiating assertlveness, defending assertlveness, frank
ness, praise, requesting help, and refusing demands. Three scales
designed to examine relationship factors are also Included — conflict
avoidance, dependency, and shyness. The IBS consists of 272 true/
false Items.
The reliability of the IBS was determined using a sample of college students. A test-retest format over a two-day and ten-week time period was used In conjunction with the coefficient alpha Internal consistency procedure (Mauger & Âdklnson, 1980). A review by Franzol (1978) con cluded:
The test-retest reliabilities range from the low .70s to the mid .90s and compare well with other scales In the field. The IBS scales appear to have adequate Internal consistency except for the Refusing Demands scale, where the reliability coefficients for the long and short versions were .33 and .11... a tentative conclusion Is that the IBS generally has good reliability and internal consistency.
Another review by Hutzell (1985) Indicated:
The currently available Information appears to support the reliability of the IBS. Internal consistency coefficients (coefficient alpha) are reasonable, though not exceptional, ranging from .52 to .88 (M = .71) for the full versions of the scales at cross-validation. Test-retest reliability information is encouraging, with correlations ranging from .71 to .96 (M " .89) at a 2-day inter-test Interval and from .80 to .93 (M » .89) at a 10-week Interval. Differences 59
between scale means from first to second testing did not show statistical significance (p. 701).
The convergent and discriminant validity of the IBS scales have
been Investigated by Mauger and Adklnson (1980) by comparison with
several well-known personality Inventories, I.e., California Personality
Inventory (CPI) (Cough, 1975), Edwards Personal Preference Schedule
(EPFS) (Edwards, 1959), College Self-Expresslon Scale (Galassl, DeLo,
Galassl, & Bastlen, 1974), Rathus Assertlveness Schedule (Rathus,
1973), Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (Buss & Durkee, 1957), Inter
personal Checklist (ICL) (Leary, 1957), Eysenck Personality Question
naire (EPQ) (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975), Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (MMPI) (Hathaway & McKlnley, 1951), and the Tennessee
Self-Concept Scale (Fltts, 1965). Franzol (1978) reported that "In general, these relations are In the expected direction and thus support the scales' validities" (p. 700). Hutzell (1985) concluded:
Factor analytic investigation appears to support the premise that the IBS scales of assertion and aggression evaluate separate response classes... investigation of the correlation of IBS scores with the scores of other personality, assertlve ness, and aggressiveness Inventories... the overall results suggest a reasonable degree of empirical validity as well as construct validity for many of the IBS scales... concur rent validation of some of the IBS scales... has been conducted, but the results are presented in too Incomplete a manner to be useful at this time... validation of the IBS against behavioral criteria is conspicuously absent... (p. 701).
Procedure
Subjects signed up for this study on a "Psychology Research
Participation Scheduling Sheet" posted in the Psychology Department. 60
This sheet specified the date, time, and location of the study. Sub jects completed questionnaires in groups of approximately 25 persons.
Instructions for the test booklet administration are outlined in
Appendix B. Subjects first completed a consent form for participation in this study and then were given Information on how to obtain feed back regarding the results of their performance and detailed information regarding the study itself. Subjects were asked to complete all
Instruments in the test booklet, according to the instructions contained therein. As previously indicated, the instruments included in the test booklet were the demographic questionnaire, State-Trait Anger
Scale (STAS), Anger Expression (AX) Scale, Beck Depression Inventory
(BDI), Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI), Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory
(BDHI), and the Interpersonal Behavior Survey (IBS). The instruments were presented in combinations following a modified counterbalanced design to control for the effects of fatigue and instrument order. 61
RESULTS
The hypotheses were analyzed using two different methods of
determining sex-role classification, and, therefore, two different
methods of analysis. In each case, however, data were analyzed with
the Statistical Analysis System (SAS, 1985) utilizing General Linear
Models (GLM) programs. The first method utilized Bern's procedure of
sex-role classification based on a median split. In this procedure.
Indices of masculinity and femininity were used to determine dichotomized
variables of femininity, masculinity, androgyny, and undifferentiated.
Bem (1981) suggests that with a large enough sample. It Is desirable to classify subjects utilizing the sample medians, rather than the median scores of her normative sample. The median scores for the present sample were used. They were 5.4 for the femininity scale and 5.0 for the masculinity scale. These scores are In fact very similar to the median scores obtained by Bem in her normative sample (femininity = 5.5,
masculinity = 4.8). The results generally were analyzed with separate univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs), and significant univariate differences were further explored, when necessary, with
Duncan's Multiple Range Test, corrected for unequal ii.
The second method utilized multiple regression analyses as advocated by Strahan (1982), This method uses the femininity and masculinity scores and the product of these scores as predictor variables. Thus, the femininity and masculinity scores are analyzed as continuous, rather than discrete variables. This method allows for "the added statistical 62
power that continuous rather than discrete measurement provides, though
at the expense of added analytic complexity" (Strahan, 1982, p. 6).
The reader Is reminded that the data from 39 subjects were eliminated
due to the following reasons: 1) lack of English fluency, 2) large
numbers of missing data points, and 3) denial, frequency, and Impression
management scores Indicating an Invalid or unlnterpretable profile,
as evidenced by T scores above 70 on the IBS validity scales. Missing
data points for subjects who failed to answer a minimal number of Items
were replaced with their sex's average score for that Item. The
means and standard deviations for the entire sample are listed
In Table 3.
Analyses of Variance
The first hypothesis, women and feminine sex-role types have more
difficulty than men and other sex-role types recognizing their anger,
was analyzed using a two-way ANOVA defined by sex of subject (male,
female) and sex-role classification (feminine, masculine, androgynous,
undifferentiated). Each subject's sex-role type was determined by the
results of the BSRI. The dependent variables for these analyses were
trait anger and anger expression as defined by anger-out. Subjects'
level of trait anger was assessed by the STÀS. This measured individual differences in anger proneness as a personality trait. The level of anger expression was assessed using the anger-out measure from the AX
Scale. This provided an index of a subject's tendency to express anger toward other people or objects in the environment (anger-out). 63
Table 3. Means and standard deviations for the total sample
Variable N Mean Standard deviation
Femininity (RSA) 448 5.33 0.72001359 Masculinity (RSB) 450 4.93 0.86165532 State Anger (STASS) 456 20.35 7.49410893 Trait Anger (STAST 456 30.34 7.27824269 Anger-out (AXOUT) 456 15.78 3.93049062 Anger-in (AXIN) 456 17.61 4.23193891 Anger control (ANCON) 456 23.14 4.85595082 Anger expression (AXEX) 456 26.24 9.28711506 Depression (BDI) 456 7.76 6.91056607 Denial (DENIAL) 456 2.06 1.50687487 Infrequency (INFREQ) 456 1.31 1.44573457 Impression management (IMPRESS) 456 12.38 3.78534051 Aggression (AGGRESS) 456 9.64 4.03637786 Hostility (HOSTILST) 456 9.37 4.62722599 Anger expression (ANGEREX) 456 6.33 4.42983340 Disregard (DISREGD) 456 3.01 2.14372597 Verbal aggressiveness (VERBALAG) 456 4.85 2.57569332 Physical aggressiveness (PHYSAGG) 456 3.27 2.57754144 Passive aggressiveness (PASSIVAG) 456 10.89 5.62148890 Assertiveness (ASSERT) 456 13.75 4.33412166 Self-confidence (SELFCONF) 456 10.39 3.58325476 Initiating assertiveness (INITASS) 456 9.38 3.91947516 Defending assertiveness (DEFENASS) 456 12.85 3.75685736 Frankness (FRANK) 456 6.95 2.58296592 Praise (PRAISE) 456 5.60 2.08803730 Requesting help (REQUESTHE) 456 5.20 1.68381624 Refusing demands (REFUSDEM) 456 4.01 1.42653122 Conflict avoidance (CONFLAVD) 456 10.43 4.39670502 Dependency (DEPENDCY) 456 11.53 4.80238709 Shyness (SHY) 456 6.84 5.36314521 Assaultiveness (ASSAULT) 456 3.41 2.52204852 Indirect hostility (INDIRHOS) 456 4.66 1.96880310 Irrativillty (IRRITBLE) 456 5.82 2.49802312 Negativeness (NEGATIVE) 456 2.22 1.26940690 Resentment (RESENT) 456 3.42 2.11794935 Suspicion (SUSPICIN) 456 3.81 2.26282946 Verbal hostility (VERBLHOS) 456 6.81 2.75193466 Guilt (GUILT) 456 4.63 2.19808419 Total hostility (TOTLHOST) 456 34.79 11.28281453 64
The results of the ANOVÂ for trait anger revealed a significant
effect for sex role (£(3,399) • 3.83, £ < .0100), as presented in
Table 4. This indicated that subject's sex role classification was
associated with individual differences in anger proneness as a personality
trait. As reported in Table 5, Duncan's Multiple Range Test indicated
that subjects with a masculine sex role denoted a higher level of trait
anger than subjects with a feminine, undifferentiated, or androgynous
sex role. The latter groups did not differ significantly from each
other.
The results of the ANOVA for anger-out also revealed a significant
effect for sex role (F(3,399) • 6.64, £ < .0002), as illustrated in
Table 4. This Indicated that sex role was associated with the tendency to express anger toward other people or objects in the environment.
As reported in Table 6, Duncan's Multiple Range Test indicated that subjects with a masculine sex role were significantly different from the other sex role types. These subjects scored highest on the anger-out scale suggesting a greater tendency to express anger outwardly. Sub jects with an androgynous sex role obtained the next highest score, which was significantly greater than the remaining two types. Un differentiated and feminine sex role types scored lowest on the anger- out scale and did not differ from one another.
The second hypothesis, women and feminine sex-role types are more likely than men and other sex-role types to suppress anger, was evaluated using an ANOVA In which gender and sex-role type were the independent variables and suppression of anger was the dependent variable. The Anger-In subscale of the AX Scale was used to measure 65
Table 4. Analysis of variance for hypothesis one
Relationship of Sex and Sex Role to Trait Anger Source of Degrees Type III F Level of variation of freedom sum of squares value significance
Sex 1 28.04 0.54 0.4615 Sex role 3 593.58 3.83 0.0100 Sex X sex role 3 72.30 0.47 0.7054
Relationship of Sex and Sex Role to Anger Expression Source of Degrees Type III F Level of variation of freedom sum of squares value significance
Sex 1 23.42 1.58 0.2091 Sex role 3 294.65 6.64 0.0002 Sex X sex role 3 19.46 0.44 0.7258 66
Table 5. Significant differences in the means for sex role classifica tion for trait anger
Sex role N Mean Code
Masculine 87 32.63 A
Feminine 87 30.00 B
Undifferentiated 118 29.70 B
Androgynous 115 29.70 B
Note: Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. 67
Table 6. Significant differences In the means for sex role classifica tion for anger expression
Sex role N Mean Code
(tesculine 87 17. 34 A
Androgynous 115 16. 25 B
Undifferentiated 118 14.97 C
Feminine 87 14.89 C
Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. 68
the suppression of anger which Is reflected by anger-In; the tendency
to experience anger, but to hold It In or suppress It.
The results of the ANOVA for the second hypothesis revealed a
significant effect for sex role (£(3,399) - 3.88, £ < .0094), as presented
In Table 7. This Indicated that sex role was associated with the
tendency to experience anger, but to hold It In or suppress It. As
reported In Table 8, Duncan's Multiple Range Test Indicated that un
differentiated and feminine sex role types denoted a greater tendency
to hold In or suppress angry feelings than did androgynous subjects.
The responses of subjects with masculine sex roles did not differ from
those in the other three groups.
The third hypothesis was that women and feminine sex-role types
are more likely than men and other sex-role types to control the ex
perience of angry feelings. This hypothesis was evaluated using an
ANOVA in which gender and sex-role type were the Independent variables
and anger control was the dependent variable. The Anger Control sub-
scale of the AX Scale was used to determine subjects' level of anger
control; the tendency to control the experience of anger.
The results of the ANOVA for the third hypothesis also revealed
a significant effect for sex role (£(3,399) = 7.16, £ < .0001), as
presented in Table 9. This indicated that sex role was associated with the tendency to control the experience and expression of anger.
As reported in Table 10, Duncan's Multiple Range Test indicated that androgynous and feminine sex role types reported a significantly greater tendency to control anger than did subjects with a masculine sex role. Scores for androgynous sex roles were also significantly 69
Table 7. Analysis of variance for hypothesis two
Relationship of Sex and Sex Role to Anger Suppression Source of Degrees Type III F Level of variation of freedom sum of squares value significance
Sex 1 0.60 0.04 0.8510 Sex role 3 197.16 3.88 0.0094 Sex x sex role 3 50.27 0.99 0.3979 70
Table 8. Significant differences In the means for sex role classifica tion for anger suppression
Sex role N Mean Code
Undifferentiated 118 18,.27 A
Feminine 87 18.,23 A
Masculine 87 17.,48 AB
Androgynous 115 16. 49 B
Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. 71
Table 9. Analysis of variance for hypothesis three
Relationship of Sex and Sex Role to Anger Control Source of Degrees Type III F Level of variation of freedom sum of squares value significance
Sex 1 27.10 1.16 0.2822 Sex role 3 501.79 7.16 0.0001 Sex X sex role 3 66.67 0.95 0.4160 72
Table 10. Significant differences in the means for sex role classlfica- tlon for anger control
Sex role N Mean Code
Androgynous 115 24.40 A
Feminine 87 23.60 AB
Undifferentiated 118 22.80 BC
Masculine 87 21.49 C
Note: Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. 73
greater than those associated with undifferentiated sex roles.
The fourth hypothesis was that women and feminine sex-role types
are more likely than men and other sex-role types to express anger In
terms of depressive symptoms. The model for the analysis of this
hypothesis was a factorial design defined by sex of subject, sex-role
type, level of trait anger (high, average, low), level of anger-in
(high, average, low) and level of anger-out (high, average, low). The
high and low classifications for trait anger, anger-in, and anger-out
were determined by those subjects scoring above the 85th percentile rank
or below the 15th percentile rank, based on Spielberger's (1980, 1986)
normative data for these variables. A similar procedure was used by
Spielberger and London (1982) relative to trait anger In their study of
lethal type-Â anger. The dependent variable was depression reflected
in BDI scores. A significant Interaction of any of the measures of
anger with sex or sex role, with means in the appropriate order, would
be consistent with this hypothesis.
The results of the ANOVA for the fourth hypothesis revealed a
significant effect for sex (F(l,371) - 6.32, £ < .0123), trait anger
(F(2,371) - 17.54, £ < .0001), anger-in (F(l,371) - 25.83, £< .0001),
and the interactional effect of trait anger and anger-out (F\2,371) =
7.35, £ < .0007). These results are presented In Table 11. This
indicated that sex, level of trait anger, anger-In, and the Interaction of trait anger and anger-out were associated with depressive symptoms.
The Duncan's Multiple Range Tests for sex, level of trait anger, and anger suppression are reported in Table 12. These tests Indicated 74
Table 11. Analysis of variance for hypothesis four
Relationship of Sex, Sex Role, Trait Anger, Anger Suppression, and Anger-Out to Depression Source of Degrees Type III F Level of variation of freedom sum of squares value significance
Sex 1 207.29 6.32 0.0123 Sex role 3 242.54 2.47 0.0619 Trait anger 2 1150.14 17.54 0.0001 Anger suppression 1 846.91 25.83 0.0001 Anger-out 2 49.35 0.75 0.4718 Sex X sex role 3 73.53 0.75 0.5243 Sex X trait anger 2 158.36 2.42 0.0908 Sex X anger suppression 1 0.45 0.01 0.9073 Sex X anger-out 1 4.10 0.12 0.7239 Sex role x trait anger 6 144.09 0.73 0.6237 Sex role x anger supp. 3 118.95 1.21 0.3061 Sex role x anger-out 4 173.67 1.32 0.2603 Trait anger x anger supp. 2 51.55 0.79 0.4563 Trait anger x anger-out 2 482.02 7.35 0.0007 Anger supp. x anger-out 1 13.59 0.41 0.5201 75
Table 12. Significant differences in the means for sex, trait anger and anger suppression for depression
Sex N Mean Code
Women 214 8.44* A Men 193 6.65® B
Trait anger N Mean Code
High 62 12.55b A Average 274 7.34® B Low 71 4.24* C
Anger suppression^ N Mean Code
High 126 10.92b A Average 281 6.10* B
Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05.
formal range of depression.
^Mild range of depression.
^There were no subjects with anger suppression scores below the 15th percentile of Spielberger's (1986) normative sample. 76
that women differed significantly from men, obtaining higher scores
of depression. However, It should be noted that although different
from one another, both groups scored within the normal range of depres
sion. Subjects scoring high In trait anger also obtained higher scores
of depression, followed by subjects with average levels of trait anger.
Subjects scoring low In trait anger obtained the lowest scores of
depression. Subjects In these three trait anger groups were significantly
different from one another. Those high in trait anger scored in the
mild range of depression, while subjects with average and low levels
of trait anger scored within the normal range of depression. Subjects
scoring high in anger suppression obtained higher levels of depression
and were significantly different from subjects with average levels of
anger suppression. No subjects scored in the low range of anger sup
pression. Subjects high in anger suppression scored within the mild
range of depression and those subjects with average levels of anger
suppression scored within the normal range of depression.
The interactional effect of trait anger and anger-out is presented
in Table 13. Subjects obtaining low or average levels of trait anger
and low, average, or high scores on anger-out scored within the normal
range of depression. Subjects scoring high in trait anger and high
in anger-out obtained the next highest scores which placed them in the
mild range of depression. Subjects scoring high in trait anger and
average in anger-out obtained the highest scores which placed them in
the mild-moderate range of depression.
The final hypothesis stated that women and feminine sex role types who have difficulty expressing anger are more likely than men and other 77
Table 13. Differences In the means for the Interactional effect of trait anger and anger-out on depression
Mean Trait anger Anger-out N depression
Low Low 1 4.00 Low Average 66 4.45® Low High 4 0.75* Average Low 2 6.00* Average Average 222 6.91® Average High 50 9.32* High Average 19 15.89 High High 43 11.07®
Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05.
^Normal range of depression.
^MiId-moderate range of depression.
^Mild range of depression. . 78
sex role types who have difficulty expressing anger to experience negative
effects on important aspects of mental health including a lack of self-
confidence, dependency, passive-aggressiveness, conflict avoidance, guilt,
and resentment. The model for the analysis of this hypothesis was a fac
torial design defined by sex of subject, sex-role type, level of trait
anger (high, average, low), level of anger-in (high, average, low), and
level of anger-out (high, average, low). The dependent variables were
self-confidence, dependency, passive-aggressiveness, conflict avoidance,
guilt, and resentment. These mental health dependent variables were deter
mined through various scales from the BDHI which measured guilt and resent
ment and from the IBS which measured self-confidence, dependency, passive-
aggressiveness, and conflict avoidance. Again, a significant interaction
of any of the measures of anger with sex or sex role, with means in the
appropriate order, would be consistent with the hypothesis.
The multiple dependent variables were analyzed with a multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) to help preserve alpha at .05. This
was done because these variables were significantly correlated. Signifi
cant multivariate differences were further explored with univariate
ANOVAs. Significant univariate differences were further explored, when
necessary, with Duncan's Multiple Range Test, corrected for unequal n.
The MANOVA test criteria for the hypothesis of no overall effect for
the independent variables was investigated using Pillai's Trace.
Significant multivariate effects were found for sex (£(6,366) =
2.67, £ < .0150), sex role (F(18,1104) = 3.50, £ < .0001), trait anger
(F(12,734) - 3.56, £ < .0001), anger-in (F(6,366) » 5.37, £ < .0001), and anger-out (F^(12,734) = 2.99, £ < .0004). The interactional effect 79
for these variables using Filial's Trace was nonsignificant. These
findings Indicated that sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-In, and anger-
out produced meaningful overall differences In subjects' responses to
the mental health dependent variables. These effects were further
explored using ANOVAs and Duncan's Multiple Range Test.
The results of the ANOVA for self-confidence was significant for
sex role (£(3,371) • 8,08, £ < .0001), trait anger (£(2,371) • 7.98,
£ < .0004) and anger-In (£(1,371) • 22.93, £ < .0001), as presented In
Table 14. This Indicated that sex role, trait anger, and anger-in
were associated with self-confidence.
Duncan's Multiple Range Test Indicated that subjects with an androgy
nous and masculine sex role type obtained the highest scores on the self-
confidence scale, which were significantly greater than those for subjects
with a feminine and undifferentiated sex-role type (see Table 15). The
latter groups were not significantly different from one another. Subjects
who scored In the low and average range of trait anger obtained the highest
scores on the self-confidence scale and were significantly different from
subjects in the high range of trait anger (see Table 16). Subjects who
scored in the average range of anger-in obtained significantly higher
scores on the self-confidence scale than did subjects high in anger-in
(see Table 17).
The results of the ANOVA for dependency were significant for sex
(£(1,371) - 8.23, £ < .0044), sex role (£(3,371) - 4.44, £ < .0044), trait
anger (£(2,371) = 5.14, £ < .0063), and the interactional effect of sex
and sex role (£(3,371) = 3.77, £ < .0110), as presented in Table 18. This
indicated that sex, sex role, trait anger, and the interaction of sex and 80
Table 14. Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relationship of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-in, and anger-out and their interactions to self-confidence
Source of Degrees of Type III F Level of variation freedom sum of squares value significance
Sex 1 2.07 0.21 0.6479 Sex role 3 240.43 8.08 0.0001 Trait anger 2 158.30 7.98 0.0004 Anger-in 1 227.36 22.93 0.0001 Anger-out 2 1.94 0.10 0.9068 Sex X sex role 3 39.03 1.31 0.2702 Sex X trait anger 2 7.67 0.39 0.6796 Sex X anger-in 1 0.25 0.03 0.8743 Sex X anger-out 1 2.22 0.22 0.6364 Sex role x trait anger 6 50.68 0.85 0.5307 Sex role x anger-in 3 17.19 0.58 0.6298 Sex role x anger-out 4 42.77 1.08 0.3669 Trait anger x anger-in 2 20.49 1.03 0.3568 Trait anger x anger-out 3 30.47 1.54 0.2165 Anger-in x anger-out 1 0.89 0.09 0.7652 81
Table 15. Significant differences in the means for sex role for self-confidence
Sex role N Mean Code
Androgynous 116 11.97* A
Masculine 90 11.18* A
Feminine 91 9.29* B
Undif f erentiated 110 9.07* B
Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05.
^Average range of self-confidence. 82
Table 16. Significant differences In the means for trait anger for self-confidence
Trait anger N Mean Code
Low 71 11.51* A
Average 274 10.58® A
High 62 8.42* B
Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05.
^Average range of self-confidence. 83
Table 17. Significant differences in the means for anger-in for self-confIdence
Anger-in N Mean Code
Average 281 11.17* A
High 126 8.71* B
Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05.
^Average range of self-confidence. 84
Table 18. Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relationship of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-In and anger-out and their Interactions to dependency
Source of Degrees of Type III F Level of variation freedom sum of squares value significance
Sex 1 147.97 8.23 0.0044 Sex role 3 239.56 4.44 0.0044 Trait anger 2 184.97 5.14 0.0063 Anger-in 1 52.59 2.92 0.0881 Anger-out 2 40.46 1.12 0.3259 Sex X sex role 3 203.25 3.77 0.0110 Sex X trait anger 2 51.20 1.42 0.2422 Sex X anger-in 1 37.93 2.11 0.1473 Sex X anger-out 1 0.05 0.00 0.9596 Sex role x trait anger 6 83.94 0.78 0.5877 Sex role x anger-in 3 62.43 1.16 0.3261 Sex role x anger-out 4 27.04 0.38 0.8259 Trait anger x anger-in 2 1.10 0.03 0.9699 Trait anger x anger-out 3 106.06 2.95 0.0537 Anger-in x anger-out 1 12.85 0.71 0.3985 85
sex role were associated with dependency. Women (12.35) scored higher than
men (10.44) on dependency, as Indicated in Table 19. Duncan's Multiple
Range Test indicated that subjects in each sex role type classification
were significantly different from one another as Illustrated In Table 20.
Subjects with a feminine sex role type obtained the highest dependency
scores, followed by undifferentiated, androgynous, and masculine sex role
types. Subjects in each range of trait anger were significantly different
from one another, as presented in Table 21. Subjects who scored in the
high range of trait anger obtained the highest dependency scores, followed
by subjects in the average range and those in the low range of trait anger.
The interactional effect of sex and sex role is presented in
Table 22. Women with a feminine sex role obtained the highest dependency
scores which placed them in the high range of dependency. Women with
a masculine sex role obtained the lowest dependency scores which placed
them in the average range of dependency. Women with an androgynous sex role and men of all sex role types also scored within the average range of dependency.
The results of the MOVÀ for passive-aggressiveness revealed a significant effect for sex (£(1,371) • 4.07, £ < .0442), sex role
(F(3,371) - 4.60, £ < .0036), trait anger (F(2,371) = 9.76, £ < .0001), anger-in (£(1,371) • 10.62, £ < .0012), and anger-out (£(2,371) =
4.97, £ < .0074) are presented In Table 23. This indicated that sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-in, and anger-out were associated with passive-aggressiveness.
Women (11.05) scored higher than men (10.68) on passive- aggressiveness (see Table 24). Duncan's Multiple Range Test indicated 86
Table 19. Significant differences in the means for sex for dependency
Sex N Mean
Women 214 12.35*
Men 193 10.44*
^Average range of dependency. 87
Table 20. Significant differences in the means for sex role for dependency
Sex role N Mean Code
Feminine 91 13.91* A
Undifferentiated 110 12.25^ B
Androgynous 116 10.94^ C
Masculine 90 8.61^ D
Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05.
^igh range of dependency.
^Average range of dependency. 88 table 21. Significant differences in the means for trait anger for dependency
Trait anger N Mean Code
High 62 13.24* A
Average 274 11.46* B
Low 71 9.79* C
Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05.
*Average range of dependency. 89
Table 22. Differences In the means for Interactional effect of sex and sex role on dependency
Mean Sex Sex role N dependency
Women Feminine 74 14.42*
Women Masculine 27 7.33^
Women Undifferentiated 54 13.48^
Women Androgynous 59 11.02^
Men Feminine 17 11.71^
Men Masculine 63 9.16^
Men Undifferentiated 56 11.05^
Men Androgynous 57 10.86^
Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05.
*Hlgh range of dependency.
^Average range of dependency. 90
Table 23. Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relationship of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-in, and anger-out and their interactions to passive-aggressiveness
Source of Degrees of Type III F Level of variation freedom sum of squares value significance
Sex 1 91.13 4.07 0.0442 Sex role 3 308.44 4.60 0.0036 Trait anger 2 436.75 9.76 0.0001 Anger-in 1 237.52 10.62 0.0012 Anger-out 2 222.29 4.97 0.0074 Sex X sex role 3 83.92 1.25 0.2911 Sex X trait anger 2 62.27 1.39 0.2498 Sex X anger-in 1 40.84 1.83 0.1774 Sex X anger-out 1 0.35 0.02 0.9003 Sex role x trait anger 6 65.39 0.49 0.8178 Sex role x anger-in 3 56.70 0.85 0.4699 Sex role x anger-out 4 136.48 1.53 0.1940 Trait anger x anger-in 2 66.23 1.48 0.2288 Trait anger x anger-out 3 120.58 2.70 0.0688 Anger-in x anger-out 1 3.67 0.16 0.6855 91
Table 24. Significant differences In the means for sex for passive- aggressiveness
Sex N Mean
Women 214 11.05*
Men 193 10.68*
^Average range of passive-aggressiveness. 92
that subjects with an undifferentiated sex role type obtained signifi
cantly higher passive-aggressiveness scores than did subjects with
androgynous sex roles (see Table 25). Subjects in the different trait
anger categories were significantly different from one another. Subjects
high In trait anger obtained the highest passive-aggressiveness scores,
followed by subjects with average trait anger and low trait anger (see
Table 26). Subjects high in anger-in obtained the highest passive-
aggressiveness scores and were significantly different from subjects who
scored within the average range of anger-in (see Table 27). Subjects high
in anger-out obtained the highest passive-aggressive scores and were sig
nificantly different from subjects who scored in the average and low
ranges of anger-out (see Table 28).
The results of the ANOVÂ for conflict avoidance revealed a significant
effect for sex role (£(3,371) - 8.88, £ < .0001), anger-in (F(l,371) -
12.53, £ < .0005), anger-out CF(2,371) • 9,04, £ < .0001), and the
Interactional effect of sex role and trait anger (F(6,371) = 2.19,
£ < .0438). These results are presented in Table 29. This indicated that subject's sex role, anger-in, anger-out, and interaction of sex role and trait anger were associated with conflict avoidance.
The Duncan's Multiple Range Test indicated that subjects with a feminine and undifferentiated sex role type were similar and obtained the highest conflict avoidance scores. These two groups were significantly different from subjects with an androgynous and masculine sex role type who obtained the lowest conflict avoidance scores and were not signifi cantly different from one another (see Table 30). Subjects high in anger-in obtained conflict avoidance scores significantly greater than 93
Table 25. Significant differences in the means for sex role for passive-aggressiveness
Sex role N Mean Code
Undifferentiated 110 11.94* A
Feminine 91 10.99* AB
Masculine 90 10.89* AB
Androgynous 116 9.77* B
Note: Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05.
^Average range of passive-aggressiveness. 94
Table 26. Significant differences in the means for trait anger for passive-aggressiveness
Trait anger N Mean Code
High 62 15.77* A
Average 274 10.83* B
Low 71 6.77* C
Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05.
*Average range of passive-aggressiveness. 95
Table 27. Significant differences In the means for anger-In for passive-aggressiveness
Anger-In N Mean Code
High 126 13.37* A
Average 281 9.75* B
Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05.
^Average range for passive-aggressiveness. 96
Table 28. Significant differences in the means for anger-out for passive-aggressiveness
Anger-out N Mean Code
High 97 14.38* A
Average 307 9.81* B
Low 3 6.00* B
Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05.
^Average range of passive-aggressiveness. 97
Table 29. Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relationship of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-In, and anger-out and their Interactions to conflict avoidance
Source of Degrees of Type III F Level of variation freedom sum of squares value significance
Sex 1 2.45 0.19 0.6664 Sex role 3 351.31 8.88 0.0001 Trait anger 2 2.15 0.08 0.9217 Anger-in 1 165.16 12.53 0.0005 Anger-out 2 238.42 9.04 0.0001 Sex X sex role 3 7.99 0.20 0.8949 Sex X trait anger 2 51.89 1.97 0.1411 Sex X anger-in 1 1.88 0.14 0.7059 Sex X anger-out 1 2.57 0.19 0.6592 Sex role x trait anger 6 172.82 2.19 0.0438 Sex role x anger-in 3 6.46 0.16 0.9210 Sex role x anger-out 4 39.43 0.75 0.5600 Trait anger x anger-in 2 0.77 0.03 0.9710 Trait anger x anger-out 3 18.81 0.71 0.4901 Anger-in x anger-out 1 1.19 0.09 0.7644 98
Table 30. Significant differences in the means for sex role for conflict avoidance
Sex role N Mean Code
Feminine 91 12.99* A
Undif f erentlated 110 12.12* A
Androgynous 116 8.56* B
Masculine 90 7.89* B
Note: Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05.
^Average range of conflict avoidance. 99
those from subjects scoring In the average range of anger-In (see
Table 31). Subjects scoring In the low and average ranges of anger-out
obtained the highest conflict avoidance scores and were significantly
greater than those from subjects scoring In the high range of anger-out
(see Table 32).
The Interactional effect of sex role and trait anger Is presented In
Table 33. Subjects with a feminine sex role who scored high In trait
anger obtained the highest conflict avoidance scores which placed them in
the high range of conflict avoidance. Subjects with a masculine sex
role who scored high in trait anger obtained the lowest conflict
avoidance scores which placed them in the low range of conflict avoidance.
Subjects in the remaining sex role classifications and trait anger
levels scored within the average range of conflict avoidance.
The results of the ANOVA for guilt revealed a significant effect
for trait anger (F(2,371) - 11.17, £ < .0001) and anger-in (F(l,371) =
6.18, 2 < .0133) as presented in Table 34. This indicated that trait
anger and anger-in were associated with guilt.
The Duncan's Multiple Range Test indicated that subjects in the three levels of trait anger were significantly different from one another. Subjects high in trait anger obtained the highest scores on the guilt scale, followed by subjects who scored in the average and low ranges of trait anger (see Table 35). Subjects high in anger-in obtained the scores on the guilt scale that were signlficnatly greater than those from subjects who scored in the average range of anger-in
(see Table 36).
The results of the ANOVA for resentment revealed a significant 100
Table 31. Significant differences In the means for anger-In for conflict avoidance
Anger-In N Mean Code
High 126 11.82* A
Average 281 9.71* B
Note: Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05.
^Average range of conflict avoidance. 101
Table 32. Significant differences in the means for anger-out for conflict avoidance
Anger-out N Mean Code
Low 3 12.33* A
Average 307 11.22® A
High 97 7.60* B
Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at 2 < .05.
^Average range of conflict avoidance. 102
Table 33. Differences In the means for the interactional effect of sex role and trait anger on conflict avoidance
Mean conflict Sex role Trait anger N avoidance
Feminine Low 17 12.76*
Feminine Average 62 12.77®
Feminine High 12 14.42^
Masculine Low 12 9.75*
Masculine Average 55 8.71*
Masculine High 23 4.96^
Undifferentiated Low 22 13.23®
Undifferentiated Average 74 11.91*
Undifferentiated High 14 11.50*
Androgynous Low 20 9.85*
Androgynous Average 83 8.29*
Androgynous High 13 8.31*
Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05.
^Average range of conflict avoidance.
'^Hlgh range of conflict avoidance.
^Low range of conflict avoidance. 103
Table 34. Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relationship of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-in, and anger-out and their interactions to guilt
Source of Degrees of Type III F Level of variation freedom sum of squares value significance
Sex 1 7.93 1.99 0.1591 Sex role 3 26.52 2.22 0.0854 Trait anger 2 88.95 11.17 0.0001 Anger-in 1 24.62 6.18 0.0133 Anger-out 2 0.09 0.01 0.9886 Sex X sex role 3 3.23 0.27 0.8463 Sex X trait anger 2 4.39 0.55 0.5769 Sex X anger-in 1 3.06 0.77 0.3812 Sex X anger-out 1 1.88 0.47 0.4922 Sex role x trait anger 6 38.56 1.61 0.1419 Sex role x anger-in 3 12.17 1.02 0.3843 Sex role x anger-out 4 8.18 0.51 0.7256 Trait anger x anger-in 2 0.05 0.01 0.9932 Trait anger x anger-out 3 1.65 0.21 0.8131 Anger-in x anger-out 1 1.25 0.31 0.5761 104
Table 35. Significant differences in the means for trait anger for guilt
Trait anger N Mean Code
High 62 5.84® A
Average 274 4.48* B
Low 71 3.68* C
Note: Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05.
^Average range of guilt. 105
Table 36. Significant differences in the means for anger-in for guilt
Anger-in N Mean Code
High 126 5.39* A
Average 281 4.17* B
Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05.
^Average range of guilt. 106
effect for sex role (2(3,371) • 5.08, £ < .0019), trait anger (F(2,371) =
10.56, 2 < .0001), anger-in (F(l,371) • 5.76, < .0169, and anger-out
(F(2,371) • 3.34, £ < .0363) as presented in Table 37. This Indicated
that sex role, trait anger, anger-in, and anger-out were associated with
resentment.
The Duncan's Multiple Range Test indicated that subjects with an un
differentiated sex role type obtained scores on the resentment scale
that were significantly higher than those for subjects with feminine and
androgynous sex roles. Subjects with an androgynous sex role obtained
significantly lower resentment scores than did subjects with feminine
and masculine sex roles. These results are presented in Table 38.
Subjects in all levels of trait anger were significantly different from one another on the resentment scale. Subjects high in trait anger obtained the highest resentment scores, followed by subjects who scored in the average and low ranges of trait anger (see Table 39). Subjects high in anger-in obtained significantly higher resentment scores than did subjects who scored in the average range of anger-in (see Table 40).
Subjects who scored in the high and average ranges of anger-out obtained the highest resentment scores and were significantly different from subjects low in anger-out. These results are presented in Table 41.
Multiple Regression and Correlation
In addition to the analyses of variance discussed in the previous section, multiple regression was also used to analyze the hypotheses.
This was done as a means of examining the effects of the independent 107
Table 37. Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relationship of sex» sex role, trait anger» anger-in» and anger-out and their interactions to resentment
Source of Degrees of Type III F Level of variation freedom sum of squares value significance
Sex 1 1.31 0.39 0.5324 Sex role 3 50.99 5.08 0.0019 Trait anger 2 70.69 10. j6 0.0001 Anger-in 1 19.28 5.76 0.0169 Anger-out 2 22.40 3.34 0.0363 Sex X sex role 3 20.89 2.08 0.1025 Sex X trait anger 2 5.34 0.80 0.4512 Sex X anger-in 1 1.35 0.40 0.5257 Sex X anger-out 1 0.09 0.03 0.8675 Sex role x trait anger 6 22.38 1.11 0.3534 Sex role x anger-in 3 15.79 1.57 0.1958 Sex role x anger-out 4 9.93 0.74 0.5644 Trait anger x anger-in 2 3.24 0.48 0.6169 Trait anger x anger-out 3 1.49 0.22 0.8009 Anger-in x anger-out 1 0.30 0.09 0.7645 108
Table 38. Significant differences in the means for sex role for resentment
Sex role N Mean Code
Undifferentiated 110 3.98* A
Masculine 90 3.52* AB
Feminine 91 3.36* B
Androgynous 116 2.84* C
Note: Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05.
^Average range of resentment. 109
Table 39. Significant differences In the means for trait anger for resentment
Trait anger N Mean Code
High 62 5.08* A
Average 274 3.41* B
Low 71 2.00^ C
Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05.
^Average range of resentment.
\ow range of resentment. 110
Table 40, Significant differences In the means for anger-In for resentment
Anger-In N Mean Code
High 126 4.29® A
Average 281 3.02* B
Note: Means with the same code are not significantly different at 2 < .05.
^Average range of resentment. Ill
Table 41. Significant differences in the means for anger-out for resentment
Anger-out N Mean Code
High 97 4.43* A
Average 307 3.12* A
Low 3 1.00^ B
Note: Means with the same code are not significantly different at 2 < .05.
^Average range of resentment.
^Low range of resentment. 112
variables on the dependent variables. In this manner, femininity and
masculinity were analyzed as continuous variables, rather than analyzed
as discrete sex-role classification variables. However, it became
readily apparent that the variables were highly intercorrelated which
precluded the use of Type III sums of squares. In light of these data,
it was decided that the ÂNOVÂ was most appropriate. Alternatively, a
correlational model by sex was used to examine the degree of relation
ship among the variables within sex. The correlational data by sex
are presented In Appendix C.
An Important purpose of this study was to explore possible rela
tionships and gender and sex role differences that might exist between
anger expression, hostility, aggressiveness, and assertlveness and the
mental health indices Included in the final hypothesis: lack of
self-confidence, passive-aggressiveness, conflict avoidance, dependency,
resentment, and guilt. It was expected that the negative aspects of
mental health being evaluated would be positively correlated with
anger-in, hostility, and aggressiveness, and negatively correlated
with assertlveness. These data are presented in Table 42 for women
and men.
For women (n • 242), a masculine sex role type was significantly
correlated with self-confidence (£ • .41, £< .0001), dependency
(r • -.45, 2 < .0001), and conflict avoidance (£ • -.51, £ < .0001).
Anger-in was significantly correlated with self-confidence (jr = -.46,
£ < .0001), dependency (jr " .35, £ < .0001), passive-aggressiveness
(£ • .48, £ < .0001), conflict avoidance (£ • .38, £ < .0001), guilt
(£ = .34, £ < .0001), and resentment (jr » .40, £ < .0001). Anger-out Table 42. Pearson correlation coefficients for women and men
RSA RSB STAST AXIN (femininity) (masculinity) (trait anger) (anger-in) Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men
Self- 0.04 0.22 0.41 0.35 -0.36 -0.21 -0.46 -0.32 confidence 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 237 213 241 213 242 213 242 213
Dependency 0.18 0.13 -0.45 -0.15 0.32 0.26 0.35 0.11 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 237 213 241 213 242 213 242 213
Passive- -0.09 -0.24 -0.17 -0.07 0.60 0.51 0.48 0.34 aggressiveness 0.18 0.00 0.01 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 237 213 241 213 242 213 242 213
Conflict 0.06 -0.02 -0.51 -0.47 -0.10 -0.21 0.38 0.17 avoidance 0.32 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 237 213 241 213 242 213 242 213
Guilt 0.09 0.06 -0.18 -0.16 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.16 0.36 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 237 213 241 213 242 213 242 213
Resentment -0.09 -0.28 -0.12 -0.13 0.53 0.52 0.40 0.39 0.15 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 437 213 241 213 242 213 242 213
Note; The three figures reported from top to bottom are the Pearson correlation coefficient, £ value, and n. 114
AXOUT (anger-out) Aggressiveness Assertlveness Hostility Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men
—0.07 -0.01 -0.17 -0.09 0.56 0.58 -0.36 -0.24 0.29 0.87 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 242 213 242 213 242 213 242 213
0.13 0.18 0.10 0.10 -0.37 -0.14 0.42 0.38 0.04 0.01 0.12 0.14 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 242 213 242 213 242 213 242 213
0.36 0.47 0.50 0.53 -0.17 —0.02 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.73 0.00 0.00 242 213 242 213 242 213 242 213
—0.36 -0.47 -0.13 -0.33 -0.59 -0.64 -0.05 -0.25 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 242 213 242 213 242 213 242 213
0.22 0.09 0.12 0.05 -0.19 —0.26 0.59 0.44 0.00 0.21 0.07 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 242 213 242 213 242 213 242 213
0.31 0.41 0.35 0.45 -0.14 -0.11 0.69 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.11 0.00 0.00 242 213 242 213 242 213 242 213 115
was significantly correlated with passive-aggressiveness = .36,
£ < .0001) and conflict avoidance (£ • -.36, 2 < .0001). Assertiveness
was significantly correlated with anger-in (jr • -.27, £ < .0001),
self-confidence (£ • .56, £ < .0001), dependency (£ • -.37, £ < .0001),
and conflict avoidance (_r = -.59, £ < .0001). Hostility was
significantly correlated with passive-aggressiveness (£ » .72,
£ < .0001), self-confidence (r_ • -.36, £ < .0001), dependency (£ • .42,
£ < .0001), resentment (£ » .69, £ < .0001), and guilt (£ • .59,
£ < .0001).
For men (n • 213), a feminine sex role type was significantly
correlated with resentment (jr - -.28, £ < .0001). A masculine sex
role type was significantly correlated with self-confidence (jc • .35,
£ < .0001) and conflict avoidance (£ • -.47, £ < .0001). Anger-in
was significantly correlated with self-confidence (£ • -.32, £ < .0001),
passive-aggressiveness (£ = .34, £ < .0001), guilt (r • .36, £ < .0001),
and resentment (r^" .39, £ < .0001). Anger-out was significantly cor
related with passive-aggressiveness (jr • .47, £ < .0001), conflict
avoidance (£ = -.47, £ < .0001), and resentment (£ • .41, £ < .0001).
Aggressiveness was significantly correlated (£ < .0001) with passive-
aggressiveness <£ « .53, £ < .0001), conflict avoidance (£ • -.33,
£ < .0001), and resentment (£ • .45, £ < .0001). Assertiveness was
significantly correlated <£ < .0001) with self-confidence (£ = .58,
£ < .0001), conflict avoidance (£ • -.64, £ < .0001), and guilt
(r^ • -.26, £ < .0001). Hostility was significantly correlated with
passive-aggressiveness (£ •» .72, £< .0001), dependency (£ » .38,
£< .0001), resentment (£ » .75, £ < .0001), and guilt <£ = .44, 116
£ < .0001).
The correlational data for the combined sample on all measures
are presented In Appendix D. As previously discussed, the examination
of the relationships among these variables Is important in view of
the conceptual and methodological ambiguity of previous investigations.
Cluster Analyses
Preliminary analyses
An important issue that must be addressed prior to clustering
data is the relationship among the variables. If the variables are
not independent, eventual clustering may be overly Influenced by the
correlated variables being more heavily weighted. To determine the
correlation among the variables to be Included in this study's cluster
analysis, the data were factor analyzed using a principal axis method
with a varlmax rotation. Reducing the data in this manner so the
underlying factors are equally weighted relative to the proximity
measure is discussed by Borgen and Barnett (1987). Three factors had eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and the rotated 3-factor pattern is presented in Table 43. Additionally, the three factor solution was most Interpretable.
The high loadings on the first factor of Assault (.60), Aggressive ness (.80), Hostile Stance (.88), Disregard for Rights (.77), Verbal
Aggressiveness (.64), and Physical Aggressiveness (.67) suggested a negative expression of anger. Including elements of aggression and acting-out behavior. The high loadings on the second factor of 117
Table 43. Rotated factor pattern
Scale Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Anger-In (AXIN) 0.05917 -0.00287 0.59669 Anger-out (AXOUT) 0.32207 0.71442 0.17340 Anger control (AXCON) -0.15835 -0.64631 -0.22879 Trait anger (STAST) 0.22589 0.58631 0.49588 Assault (ASSAULT) 0.60412 0.39538 0.06523 Indirect hostility (INDIRHOS) 0.11674 0.51744 0.29691 Irritability (IRRITBLE) 0.15759 0.45319 0.63406 Negativism (NEGATIVE) 0.34907 0.16726 0.38776 Resentment (RESENT) 0.15872 0.23395 0.72057 Suspicion (SUSPICIN) 0.18936 0.18884 0.70864 Verbal hostility (VERBLHOS) 0.45054 0.59843 -0.01244 Aggressiveness (AGGRESS) 0.80331 0.24676 0.29876 Hostile stance (HOSTILST) 0.87686 0.20409 0.21408 Expression of anger (ANGEREX) 0.37867 0.72952 0.25768 Disregard for rights (DISREGD) 0.76708 0.08066 0.24149 Verbal aggressiveness (VERBALAG) 0.63840 0.44700 0.15370 Physical aggressiveness (PHYSAGG) 0.66973 0.30776 0.12319 Passive aggressiveness (PASSIVAG) 0.26358 0.27492 0.72413 118
Anger-Out (.71), Anger Control (-.65), Trait Anger (.59), Indirect
Hostility (.52), Verbal Hostility (.60), and Expression of Anger (.73)
suggested higher levels of acknowledged anger with less control and
physical expression and more verbal and indirect hostility. High
loadings on the third factor of Anger-In (.60), Trait Anger (.50),
Irritability (.63), Resentment (.72), Suspicion (.71), and Passive
Aggressiveness (.72) suggested anger suppression.
In view of the descriptive nature of this study, a decision was
made to perform cluster analyses utilizing two methods. Initially,
the data were analyzed using the factor scores for all scales obtained
in the factor analysis. This method allows the investigator to main
tain the independence of the factor scores. A second method of clustering was utilized in which scales with a factor loading score of .50 or greater were used to form dimensions of equal unit weighting. Use of unit factor scores generally is a robust technique, but it can result in correlated factors, which was the case in this study.
Cluster analysis using factor scores
The cluster program of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS, 1985) was used for the cluster analysis. This program Is based on Ward's hierarchical method of cluster analysis which merges groups based on minimum within-in group variance. This method provides an index of within-group error which can be plotted to facilitate the selection of the appropriate grouping level (Borgen & Barnett, 1987). The semi-partial r squared scores for the present sample are plotted in Figure 1. Based on these results, it was concluded that a five cluster solution was 0.225» I 1
0.2001
0.175
2
K 0.125 • 3 IZ o.iooi i 0.075* 4
0.050*
0.025
0.000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l6 17 18 19 20 Number of Clusters
Figure 1. Plot of semi-partial r squared scores 120
appropriate. These five clusters are Illustrated In Figure 2.
Subjects In Cluster 1 (n • 114) scored relatively low on the
anger expression factors and appear to suppress anger as evidenced
by their high scores on Factor 3. Subjects in Cluster 2 (n - 49)
appear to be acknowledging high levels of anger which is not controlled
and likely to be expressed with aggression, acting-out behaviors, and
hostility as evidenced by their high scores on Factor 1 and Factor 2.
Subjects in Cluster 3 (n " 97) do not appear to be acknowledging anger
or hostility, or suppressing anger, as evidenced by their low scores
on Factor 2 and Factor 3. However, subjects in Cluster 3 do appear
to express anger with aggression and acting-out behaviors, as evidenced
by their high scores on Factor 1. Subjects in Cluster 4 (n = 117) do not appear to be acknowledging significant anger expression, suppression, or hostility, as evidenced by their low scores on all factors.
Subjects in Cluster 5 (n • 78) acknowledge verbal and indirect hostility and high levels of anger which is not controlled, as evidenced by their high scores on Factor 2. However, subjects in Cluster 5 do not appear to express anger aggressively, as evidenced by their low scores on Factor 1. Subjects In this cluster also appear to suppress anger, as evidenced by their high scores on Factor 3.
Validation of clusters
As a means of verifying the validity of this cluster solution, one-way Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) across the five clusters were performed on the variables not Included in the cluster analysis.
These variables provided data appropriate for ANOVAs and Included: 121
2 r
• Cluster 5 Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Ic/a 0
Cluster 3 C/3I
Cluster 4 -1
-2 _L Factor 1* Factor 2^ Factor 3^
Factor 1 = negative expression of anger with aggression and acting-out behavior.
'^Factor 2 • high levels of acknowledged, uncontrolled anger with less physical expression and more verbal and indirect hostility.
^Factor 3 = anger suppression.
Figure 2. Group means for the three factors using a five cluster solution 122
femininity, masculinity, state anger, depression, denial, infrequent
responses, impression management, assertiveness, self-confidence,
initiating assertiveness, defending assertiveness, frankness, praise,
requesting help, refusing demands, conflict avoidance, dependency, shy
ness, negativism, guilt, and total hostility.
Significant differences among the clusters were found on all variables
as presented in Table 44. All of these variables were significant at the
0.0001 level or greater; femininity (F(4,450) • 12.31), masculinity
(£(4,450) • 22.60), state anger (£(4,451) • 16.40), depression (£(4,451) =
26.05), denial (F(4,451) « 8.99), infrequency (F(4,451)• 26.92), impres
sion management (F(4,451) • 36.34), assertiveness (£(4,451) = 31.07, self-
confidence (£(4,451) - 26.12, initiating assertiveness (£(4,451) =
18.36), defending assertiveness (£(4,451) » 24.53), frankness (£(4,451) =
22.06), giving and receiving praise (£(4,451) • 14.11), requesting help
(£(4,451) - 12.03), refusing demands (£(4,451) • 17.22), conflict
avoidance (£(4,451) - 51.80), dependency (£(4,451) = 22.43), shyness
(£(4,451) • 12.29), negatlveness (£(4,451) » 23.56), guilt (£(4,451) =
22.04), and total hostility (£(4,451) • 125.18).
Significant univariate effects were further explored with Duncan's
Multiple Range Test, corrected for unequal ii as Illustrated in Ap
pendix E. A summary of these results is presented in Table 45.
The analysis of femininity indicated that subjects in Clusters
4 and 5 scored higher than subjects in Clusters 1, 3, and 2. Sub jects in Clusters 1 and 3 obtained the next highest scores on femininity which were greater than those in Cluster 2. For masculinity, subjects in Clusters 2 and 3 obtained the highest scores which were 123
Table 44. Analysis of variance with the five clusters
Source of Type III F P variation sum of squares value value
Femininity 44.77 12.31 0.0001 Masculinity 75.94 22.60 0.0001 State anger 57.76 16.40 0.0001 Depression 85.38 26.05 0.0001 Denial 33.59 8.99 0.0001 Infrequency 87.69 26.92 0.0001 Impression 110.91 36.34 0.0001 Assertlveness 98.29 31.07 0.0001 Self-confidence 85.58 26.12 0.0001 Initiating assertlveness 63.72 18.36 0.0001 Defending assertlveness 81.29 24.53 0.0001 Frankness 74.47 22.06 0.0001 Praise 50.60 14.11 0.0001 Requesting help 43.85 12.03 0.0001 Refusing demands 60.28 17.22 0.0001 Conflict avoidance 143.23 51.80 0.0001 Dependency 75.50 22.43 0.0001 Shyness 44.72 12.29 0.0001 Negatlveness 78.65 23.56 0.0001 Guilt 74.39 22.04 0.0001 Total hostility 239.38 125.18 0.0001
Note; Degrees of freedom • 4, 450-451. Table 45. Description of five clusters
High scores Intermediate scores Low scores (standard score (standard score (standard score Cluster of .4 and higher) of .4 and -.4) of -.4 and lower)
Conflict avoidance, Age, femininity, state Masculinity, assertiveness, female anger, depression, denial self-confidence, initiating infrequency, impression assertiveness, defending as management, praise, request sertiveness, frankness, re ing help, dependency, shy fusing demands ness, negatlveness, guilt, total hostility
Male, masculinity, state Age, depression, self- Femininity, denial, impres anger, infrequency, as- confidence, initiating as- sion management, conflict sertlveness, defending as- sertiveness, praise, re avoidance sertlveness, frankness, questing help, refusing negatlveness, total hos demands, dependency, shy tility ness, guilt
Male, masculinity, assertlve- Age, femininity, state Conflict avoidance, depen ness. Initiating assertive- anger, depression, denial, dency, guilt ness, defending assertlve- infrequency, impression ness management, self-confidence, frankness, praise, request ing help, refusing demands, shyness, negatlveness, total hostility Table 45. Continued
High scores Intermediate scores Low scores (standard score) (standard score (standard score Cluster of .4 and higher) of .4 and -.4) of -.4 and lower)
4 Impression management. Age, femininity, mas State anger, depression, in self-confidence, praise. culinity, denial, assertive- frequency, negativeness. female ness, initiating assertive- total hostility ness, defending assertive- ness, frankness, requesting help, refusing demands. conflict avoidance, depen dency, shyness, guilt
5 State anger, depression. Age, femininity, masculinity. Sex, impression management. dependency, guilt, total denial, infrequency, as- self-confidence, initiating hostility, female sertiveness, frankness. assertiveness, defending requesting help, conflict assertiveness, praise, re avoidance, shyness, nega- fusing demands tlveness 126
greater than scores from subjects In Clusters 4, 5, and 1. Subjects
In Clusters 4 and 5 obtained the next highest scores on masculinity,
which were greater than those from subjects In Cluster 1.
For state anger, subjects In Clusters 5 and 2 obtained the highest
scores which were greater than scores from subjects In Clusters 1, 3, and
4. Subjects In Cluster 1 obtained the next highest scores on state
anger which were greater than those from subjects in Cluster 4.
For depression, subjects In Cluster 5 obtained the highest scores
which were greater than scores from subjects In Clusters 2, 1, 3, and
4. Subjects In Clusters 2 and 1 obtained the next highest depression
scores, which were greater than those from subjects In Clusters 3
and 4.
For denial, subjects in Cluster 4 obtained the highest scores
which were greater than scores from subjects In Clusters 1, 3, 5,
and 2. Subjects in Clusters 1 and 3 obtained the next highest denial
scores, which were greater than those from subjects in Cluster 2.
For the infrequency scale, subjects in Cluster 2 obtained the
highest scores which were greater than scores from subjects in
Clusters 3, 5, 1, and 4. Subjects In Clusters 3 and 5 obtained the
next highest Infrequency scores, which were greater than those from
subjects in Clusters 1 and 4.
For the impression management scale, subjects in Cluster 4 obtained
the highest scores, which were greater than scores from subjects in
Clusters 3, 1, 5, and 2. Subjects in Clusters 3 and 1 obtained the
next highest scores, which were greater than those from subjects in
Clusters 5 and 2. 127
For assertlveness, subjects in Clusters 2 and 3 obtained the
highest scores which were greater than scores from subjects in
Clusters 4, 5, and 1. Subjects in Cluster 4 obtained the next highest
scores, which were greater than those from subjects in Clusters 5
and 1.
For self-confidence, subjects in Clusters 4 and 3 obtained the
highest scores which were greater than scores from subjects in Clusters
2, 1, and 5. Subjects in Cluster 2 obtained the next highest scores
which were greater than those from subjects in Clusters 1 and 5.
For initiating assertiveness, defending assertiveness, requesting
help, and refusing demands, subjects in Clusters 2, 3, and 4 obtained
the highest scores which were greater than scores from subjects in
Clusters 5 and 1. For giving and receiving praise, subjects in Clusters
4 and 3 obtained the highest scores and were greater than scores from
subjects in Clusters 2, 1, and 5.
For frankness, subjects in Clusters 2, 3, and 4 obtained the
highest scores which were greater than scores from subjects in Clusters
5 and 1. Subjects in Cluster 5 obtained the next highest scores on
the frankness scale, which were greater than those from subjects in
Cluster 1.
For conflict avoidance, subjects in Cluster 1 obtained the highest scores which were greater than scores from subjects in Clusters 5,
4, 3, and 2. Subjects in Clusters 5 and 4 obtained the next highest scores which were greater than those from subjects in Clusters 3 and 2.
Subjects in Cluster 3 obtained the next highest scores which were greater than those from subjects in Cluster 2. 128
For dependency, subjects In Clusters 5 and 1 obtained the highest
scores which were greater than scores from subjects in Clusters 2, 4,
and 3. Subjects in Cluster 2 obtained the next highest dependency
scores which were greater than those from subjects in Clusters 4 and 3.
For shyness, subjects in Clusters 1, 5, and 2 obtained the highest
scores which were greater than scores from subjects in Clusters 3 and 4.
For negativeness, subjects in Cluster 2 obtained the highest
scores which were greater than scores from subjects in Clusters 5, 1,
3, and 4. Subjects in Cluster 5 obtained the next highest scores which
were greater than those from subjects in Clusters 3 and 4. Subjects
in Clusters 1 and 3 obtained the next highest scores which were greater
than those from subjects in Cluster 4.
For guilt, subjects in Clusters 5 and 1 obtained the highest scores
which were greater than scores from subjects in Clusters 2, 4, and 3.
Subjects in Cluster 2 obtained the next highest scores which were
greater than those from subjects in Clusters 4 and 3.
For total hostility, subjects in Cluster 2 obtained the highest
scores which were greater than scores from subjects in Clusters 5,
1, 3, and 4. Subjects in Cluster 5 obtained the next highest scores
which were greater than those from subjects in Clusters 1, 3, and 4.
Subjects in Cluster 1 and 3 obtained the next highest scores which were greater than those from subjects in Cluster 4.
Results of the chi-square analysis indicated that the effects of subject's marital status (x^(20, N = 455) = 19.20, £ < .509), parental 2 9 home (x (24, N - 451) - 15.61, £ < .902), place of childhood (x (12,
N = 454) = 14.31, p < .281), age (x^(28, N » 455) = 30.00, £ < .363), 129
2 father's education (x (12, N • 455) « 15.27, £ < .227), and mother's 2 education (x (12, N • 455) • 9.78, £ < .635) were nonsignificant.
As indicated in Table 46, a significant effect was found for sex of
subject (x^(4, N • 455) - 90.87, £ < .000). Members of Clusters 1, 4,
and 5 were mostly women, whereas the majority of members in Clusters 2
and 3 were men.
Cluster analysis using unit factor scores
Ward's hierarchical method of cluster analysis (Statistical Analysis
System, 1985) was used also in the analysis of unit factor scores
(to be referred to as dimensions). As previously indicated, these
dimensions were formed by combining the standardized score of scales
with a factor loading score of .50 or greater on a particular factor.
Factor loadings are presented in Table 47. The semi-partial r squared
scores for the present sample are plotted in Figure 3. Based on these
results, it was concluded that a three cluster solution was appropriate.
The group means for the three clusters are presented in Figure 4.
As is evident in this figure, the three clusters simply represented
a "level" effect because of the high Intercorrelatlons of the three dimensions (^^ g " -64, 2% 3 " .54, £23" *75)' 1" view of these results, it was decided that further analysis of these dimensions would not be pursued. 130
Table 46. Cluster by sex frequency table
Sex Women Men n Percent of Percent of n Percent of Percent of Cluster Total N total cluster total cluster
1 114 79 17.36 69.30 35 7.69 30.70
2 49 12 2.64 24.49 37 8.13 75.51
3 97 19 4.18 19.59 78 17.14 80.41
4 117 74 16.26 63.25 43 9.45 36.75
5 78 58 12.75 74.36 20 4.40 25.64
Note: Degrees of freedom were 4.
Overall chi-square is 90.87, p < .000. 131
Table 47. Factor loading scores for clustering dimensions
Variable Factor loading score
Dimension 1 Factor 1
Assault .60 Aggressiveness .80 Hostile stance .88 Disregard for rights .77 Verbal aggressiveness .64 Physical aggressiveness .67
Dimension 2 Factor 2
Anger-out .71 Anger control -.65 Trait anger .59 Indirect hostility .52 Verbal hostility .60 Expression of anger .73
Dimension 3 Factor 3
Anger-in .60 Trait anger .50 Irritability .63 Resentment .72 Suspicion .71 Passive-aggressiveness .72 55 I
50 I 1 45 *
40 Î
35 •
30 •
25 I
20 •
15 I
10 *
05 I
00 • 8 9 10 U 12 13 14 15 16 17 IB 19 20 Number ot Clusters
Î 3. Plot of semi-partial r squared scores 133
2
-# Cluster 2
-» Cluster 3
-1 -* Cluster 1
-2 Dimension 1 Dimension 2 Dimension 3
^Dimension 1 • expression of anger with aggression and acting-out behavior.
^Dimension 2 = expression of anger with less acting-out behavior.
^Dimension 3 - anger suppression.
Figure 4. Group means for the three dimensions using a three cluster solution 134
DISCUSSION
The primary purpose of this study was to investigate a series of
hypotheses related to women's experience and expression of anger.
Subjects completed a test booklet containing several questionnaires
related to anger, hostility, aggressiveness, assertiveness, depression,
and other mental health indices. It should be noted that self-report
measures of behavior and characteristics may be limited by the subjects'
level of awareness of themselves, willingness to indicate their behavior
and characteristics, and the perceived social desirability of a
certain response. However, insuring subject confidentiality and anonymity hopefully reduced unwillingness to respond honestly and the tendency to respond in a socially desirable fashion.
Gender differences were examined by including both women and men in the population of study. The prevailing belief is that women experience anger differently than men. The univariate results of this study did not support the hypothesis that gender alone determines one's ability to express anger effectively. However, this study did support the work of others who have found that women experience higher levels of depression (Guttentag, Salasin, & Belle, 1980; Guttentag & Salasin,
1976; President's Commission on Mental Health, 1978; Weissman & Klerman,
1977). Although women did obtain higher scores on depression than men, both groups scored within the normal range. Women also obtained higher scores than men on dependency and passive-aggressiveness, although again, both groups scored within the normal range.
Sex role differences were examined by including both women and 135
men in the population of study and determining their sex role classifica
tion. The results supported the work of others who have found that
sex role type does have a significant impact on various aspects of an
individual's mental health functioning (Bem, 1975, 1981; Broverman,
Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, & Vogel, 1970; Flaherty & Dusek,
1980; Heilbrun, 1981; Lubinski, Tellegen, & Butcher, 1981; Major,
Carnevale, & Deaux, 1981; Shaw, 1982; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp,
1975; Waterman & Whitbourne, 1982). In the present study, sex role classification was associated with: 1) individual differences in anger proneness, 2) the tendency to express anger toward other people or objects in the environment, 3) anger suppression, and 4) anger control.
Subjects with a masculine sex role type reported higher levels of trait anger; proneness to anger as a personality trait. They also scored higher on the anger-out measure which suggests a greater tendency to express anger toward other people or objects in the en vironment. Subjects with a feminine and undifferentiated sex role type obtained the lowest scores on the anger-out measure and the highest scores in anger suppression. Androgynous subjects denoted the highest tendency to control the experience of anger, followed by subjects with feminine, undifferentiated, and masculine sex roles.
Another focus of this study was to investigate the relationships among various aspects of anger and important indices of mental health.
The prevailing belief is that women have more difficulty than men expressing anger and that they frequently express it through symptoms 136
of depression (Bernardez-Bonesattl, 1978; Collier, 1982; Kaplan, 1986;
Lemkau & Landau, 1986; Lerner, 1985; Miller, 1983; Scarf, 1980; Wetzel,
1984). This study further hypothesized that women who have difficulty
expressing anger are subject to negative effects on other Important as
pects of mental hèalth Including: a lack of self-confidence, passive- aggressiveness, conflict avoidance, dependency, resentment, and guilt.
As previously indicated, the results of this study did not support the prevailing belief that women frequently express anger through symptoms of depression. However, the results did indicate a rela tionship among various aspects of anger and depression as well as the mental health indices discussed above. Subjects who scored high in trait anger obtained the highest scores on the depression scale as compared to subjects with average and low levels of trait anger. The latter groups scored within normal levels of depression; subjects high in trait anger scored within the mild range of depression.
Subjects high in anger suppression also obtained the highest scores on the depression scale, as compared to subjects who scored in the average and low range of anger suppression. Subjects high in anger suppression scored within the mild range of depression. Likewise, subjects who scored high in trait anger and high in anger-out scored within the mild range of depression. Subjects who scored high in trait anger and average in anger-out scored within the mild to moderate range of depression.
Based on these results, it appears that various aspects of anger, particularly trait anger and anger suppression, have an Impact on the individual's feelings of depression. Specifically, high levels 137
of these anger variables are associated with mild levels of depres
sion. This finding appears to support the belief that anger, particularly
anger which Is suppressed. Is not conducive to good mental health.
However, an unexpected finding was the Interactional effect of trait
anger and anger-out which also contributed to mild to moderate levels
of depression. This result suggests that an Individual with a personality
trait of anger proneness, coupled with the tendency to express anger
toward other people or objects in the environment, will experience mild
to moderate levels of depression. Thus, this finding appears to contra
dict the belief that anger expressed outwardly is healthier than sup
pressed anger, thereby resulting in less depression.
The Independent variables of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-in,
and anger-out produced significant effects in the mental health variables
that were Investigated, i.e., self-confidence, dependency, passive-
aggressiveness, conflict avoidance, guilt, and resentment. Also, in
the majority of instances, the various levels of each independent
variable were significantly different from one another with respect to
the mental health variables. In general, subjects in all levels of
each Independent variable scored within the average range of self- confidence, dependency, passive-aggressiveness, conflict avoidance, guilt, and resentment. However, there were exceptions to this general finding which are discussed below.
As previously indicated, women obtained higher dependency scores than men, although both groups scored within the average range.
However, individuals with a feminine sex role scored within the high range of dependency as compared to other sex role types who scored 138
within the average range. High levels of dependency suggest strong
reliance on others for help in decision making, feelings of powerless-
ness and helplessness, fear of losing the support of others, and attention
seeking.
It appears from this finding that gender and sex role, especially
sex role, are critical factors related to dependency. This finding is
consistent with the work of Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz,
and Vogel (1970) and Bern (1974) related to the issue of society's view
of female characteristics and the resulting consequences of these be
haviors. Relying on others for help in decision making, feelings of
powerlessness and helplessness, and fear of losing the support of others
are critical issues related to many theories of counseling women.
In addition to reporting higher levels of depression, subjects
scoring high on trait anger and anger-out reported higher levels of
resentment. It appears that Individuals with low levels of trait anger and individuals who do not express their anger outwardly have lower levels of resentment. Again, this finding does not support the belief that anger expressed outwardly is healthier. Subjects with a feminine sex role and high levels of trait anger reported high levels of conflict avoidance, unlike subjects with a masculine sex role and high levels of trait anger who reported low levels of conflict avoidance.
Cluster analyses also were performed on the data to provide a descriptive, multivariate view of the experience and expression of anger.
Five distinct clusters emerged, and women constituted the majority of subjects in Clusters 1, 4, and 5, while men constituted the majority of subjects in the remaining two clusters. It is also important to 139
note that subjects in Clusters 4 and 5 obtained the highest femininity
scores, while subjects in Clusters 2 and 3 obtained the highest masculinity
scores. Thus, gender and sex role were correlated and both appeared
to affect subjects' experience and expression of anger viewed multi-
variately.
Subjects in Clusters 1 and 5 were primarily female and obtained the
highest scores on anger suppression and the lowest scores on hostile/
aggressive acting out. Subjects in Cluster 1 acknowledged only very low
levels of anger, whereas subjects in Cluster 5 acknowledged relatively
high levels of anger, expressed verbally or indirectly, but both clusters
were characterized by avoidance of conflict, low levels of assertiveness,
low self-confidence, and low masculinity scores. Subjects in Cluster 5
also reported higher levels of depression, total hostility, and in
frequent responses, suggesting that the associated pattern of anger ex
pression is the more problematic. Subjects in Cluster 4 also were primarily female, and they reported low levels of hostility/aggressive acting out, anger expression, and anger suppression. These subjects also scored high on measures of self-confidence, the ability to give and receive praise, and impression management. Thus, Cluster 4 may have included some of the more mentally healthy subjects. It is important to note that these subjects' impression management scores were not indicative of a social desirability response set.
In contrast, subjects in Clusters 2 and 3, who were primarily male, reported the highest levels of hostile/aggressive acting out behavior.
Subjects in Cluster 2 acknowledged higher levels of uncontrolled anger and anger suppression relative to subjects in Cluster 3. Overall, the 140
pattern of anger expression associated with Cluster 2 appeared to be
the most problematic of the two. Consistent with this observation,
subjects In Cluster 2 scored high on negatlveness and total hostility.
Relative to Cluster 3, Cluster 2 also was associated with higher depres
sion and dependency and lower self-confidence. Subjects In both clusters
scored high on the various measures of assertlveness.
Based on these results. It appears that there are different patterns
of experiencing and expressing anger, that the patterns are strongly
related to gender and sex role, and that the patterns were differentially
related to mental health problems or risks. For women, suppression of
anger appears to be most problematic. Suppression alone Is associated
with relatively higher conflict avoidance and relatively lower assertlve
ness and self-confidence (Cluster 1). Suppression and relatively higher
levels of uncontrolled anger expressed indirectly appears to result in
relatively higher levels of mental health problems without significantly
decreasing problems associated with suppression alone (Cluster 5).
For men, hostile/aggressive acting out was most prominent. When
reflected in lower scores on expression of uncontrolled anger, and not
also associated with suppression, significant potential mental health
problems were not manifested (Cluster 3). More frequent hostile/ aggressive acting out and anger suppression were associated with greater potential mental health problems (Cluster 2).
Perhaps the most striking pattern for males or females was the apparent relation of mental health with the relatively modulated expres sion of anger without substantial suppression. This pattern supports the prevailing belief that women who have difficulty expressing anger, 141
particularly those who rely on anger suppression, may be subject to
a variety of mental health difficulties. Furthermore, this pattern
suggests that anger suppression can also be implicated in the problematic
expression of anger by men.
Limitations of the Study
There are several limitations evident in this study which the
reader should be aware of when considering the implications of the
results. Clearly, this is a descriptive study designed to investigate contemporary speculations regarding women's experience and expression of anger, as well as the relationships that may exist among various aspects of anger and important Indices of mental health. The significance of a relationship, however, does not imply causation. Additionally, the reliance on self-report measures might introduce an element of subjectlveness. The fact that subject confidentiality and anonymity were Insured, as well as data eliminated from subjects whose scores indicated an invalid profile, suggest that Issues of response bias may have been eliminated.
Although the results of the multiple regression analyses with their added statistical power would have been preferable, it became readily apparent that the variables were highly Intercorrelated which indicated that the analyses of variance were most appropriate. However, it is important to note that in some Instances, there were a limited number of subjects in the anger-in and anger-out levels, particularly when the interactional effects of these variables were examined. 142
Therefore, the Implications of these analyses of variance should be
considered cautiously. This limitation pertains only to the final two
hypotheses.
Obviously, the results of this study are most relevant to
college student populations. The generallzablllty of these results
beyond this population is limited. However, In view of the new and
exploratory nature of this study, the results are of considerable
Interest and value in the examination of women and anger.
Implications
From a theoretical perspective, this study offers further support for the significant impact of sex role classification. The association among sex role type and individual differences in anger proneness, the tendency to express anger toward other people or objects in the environment, anger suppression, and anger control, suggest that the be havioral consequences of traditional sex roles are Important factors re lated to the manner in which anger is expressed. Furthermore, the manner in which the individual experiences anger is a critical factor related to several aspects of that individual's mental health. The results of this study did not unequivocally support the Issue raised earlier that androgyny is the critical variable involved in the healthy expression of anger resulting in sound mental health. However, the results do suggest that androgynous individuals tend to control the experience of anger.
When anger expression was viewed multlvarlately, both gender and sex role emerged as important potential determinants in the apparent 143
relationship of mental health difficulties and anger expression,
particularly anger suppression. This lends support to the prevailing
belief that women do experience anger differently than men. Women who
acknowledge significant anger tended to suppress it, while men who
acknowledged significant anger tended to express it with aggression and
acting-out behavior. However, anger suppression can be implicated in
the problematic expression of anger for both women and men. Thus, it
would appear from these results that both women and men express
anger Ineffectively. However, men also obtained high scores on various
aspects of assertlveness, even though they reported aggressive acting-
out behaviors. Therefore, women, unlike men, may suffer more negative
consequences as a result of ineffective anger expression and lack of
assertlveness skills.
In view of the gender and sex role factors apparent in the rela tionship of mental health difficulties and anger expression, the APÂ and Division 17 guidelines and principles for therapy with women might be expanded to address the Issue of anger and the therapist's role in facilitating the healthy expression of anger. Likewise, in view of the difficulties with anger expression evidenced by both women and men, professionals working with male clients must also be aware of Important issues of anger expression, particularly hostile/aggressing acting-out behavior and anger suppression. It appears from this study that the
Ineffective expression of anger is an important therapeutic Issue for both women and men and a critical Issue depending on the Individual's sex role classification.
The issue of anger expression and its effects on mental health 144
functioning may be especially relevant to Individuals suffering from
depression, anxiety or stress related disorders, and personality dis
orders. Helping these Individuals change their definition of sex-
appropriate behavior and the Ideal standard against which they evaluate
their own behavior might be extremely helpful. Additionally, facilitating
change In the manner In which these Individuals express anger might also
be very beneficial.
The results of this study suggest that the psychology of women,
particularly the field of counseling women, should continue to maintain
anger as an Issue of primary Importance. Sex role Issues should also
continue to be emphasized. Ideally, education regarding the effects
of sex role classification and anger expression should be provided to all Individuals at an early age so Informed decisions regarding the implications of various behaviors can be made. This might help prevent
the need for psychological intervention in the future.
Further research regarding anger expression needs to be con
ducted with additional emphasis being placed on the effects of sex role classification. Also, the examination of various aspects of anger and other mental health variables would provide a more comprehensive picture. Scientists and practitioners alike need to coordinate their efforts so that the results of research in this area can have a posi tive impact on clinical practice. 145
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, third edition, revised. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychological Association. (1978). Guidelines for therapy with women. American Psychologist, 33, 1122-1123.
American Psychological Association. (1981). Ethical principles of psychologists (revised). American Psychologist, 36, 633-638.
Barker, L. R. (1979). Personality variables as determinants of performance problems of recruits in the U.S. armed forces. Unpublished master's thesis. University of South Florida.
Beck, A. T. (1978). Beck Inventory. Philsdephia, PA: Center for Cognitive Therapy.
Beck, A. T., & Beamesderfer, A. (1974). Assessment of depression: The depression inventory. In P. Plchot (Ed.), Modern problems in pharamcopsychiatry. Volume 7. Basel, Switzerland: Karger.
Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1984). Internal consistencies of the original and revised Beck depression Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 1365-1367.
Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 561-571.
Belle, D. (1980). Who uses mental health facilities? In M. Guttentag, S. Salasin, & D. Belle (Eds.), The mental health of women (pp. 1-20). New York: Academic Press.
Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
Bern, L. L. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 634-643.
Bern, S. L. (1979). Theory and measurement of androgyny: A reply to the Pedhazur-Tetenbaum and Locksley-Colten critiques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1047-1054.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Bern sex-role inventory; Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. 146
Bernardez-Bonesattl, T. (1978). Women and anger: Conflicts with aggression in contemporary women. Journal of the American Medical Women's Association, 33, 215-219.
Biaggio, M. K., Suppléé, K., & Curtis, N. (1981). Reliability and validity of four anger scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 639-648.
Borgen, F. H., & Barnett, D. C. (1987). Applying cluster analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 456-468.
Brautigam, V. W. (1956). Analyse der hypochondrlschen selbstbeobachtung. Nervenarzt, 27. 409-418.
Brodsky, A. (1973). The consciousness-raising group as a model of therapy with women. Psychotherapy; Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 24-29.
Brodsky, A. M., & Hare-Mustln, R. T. (1980). Psychotherapy and women: Priorities for research. In A. M. Brodsky & R. T. Hare-Mustin (Eds.), Women and psychotherapy: An assessment of research and practice (pp. 385-409). New York: Guilford Press.
Broverman, I. K., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., Rosenkrantz, P. S., , & Vogel, S. R. (1970). Sex-role stereotypes and clinical judg ments of mental health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 1-7.
Brown, H. N., & Vaillant, G, E. (1981). Hypochondrias. Archives of Internal Medicine, 141, 723-726.
Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 343- 349.
Campbell, I. M., Burgess, P. M., & Finch, S. J. (1984). A factorial analysis of BDI scores. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 992-996.
Carmen, E. H., Russo, N. F., & Miller, J. B. (1984). Inequality and women's mental health. In P. P. Rleker & E. H. Carmen (Eds.), The gender gap in psychotherapy; Social realities and psychological processes (pp. 17-39). New York; Plenum Press.
Chesler, P. (1972). Women and madness. New York: Avon Books.
Chesler, P. (1976). Patient and patriarch; Women in the psycho therapeutic relationship. In S. Cox (Ed.), Female psychology; The emerging self (pp. 318-334). Chicago: Science Research As sociates, Inc. 147
Cllne-Naffzlger, C. (1974). Women's lives and frustration, oppres sion, and anger: Some alternatives. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 21, 51-56.
Collier, H. V. (1982). Counseling women; A guide for therapists. New York: The Free Press.
Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389-407.
Cook, E. P. (1987). Psychological androgyny: A review of the research. The Counseling Psychologist, 15, 471-513.
Edwards, A. L. (1959). Manual of the Edwards personal preference schedule. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual for the Eysenck personality questionnaire. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
Fitts, W. H. (1965). Tennessee self-concept scale manual. Nashville: Counselor Recordings and Tests.
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Nutt, R. (1986). The division 17 principles concerning the counseling/psychotherapy of women: Rationale and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist. 14. 180-216.
Flaherty, J. F., & Dusek, J. B. (1980). An investigation of the rela tionship between psychological androgyny and components of self- concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 984- 992.
Frank, E., Carpenter, L. L., Kupfer, D. J. (1988). Sex differences in recurrent depression: Are there any that are significant? American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 41-45.
Franzoi, S. L. (1985). Review of the interpersonal behavior survey. In J. V. Mitchell (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook. Volume I. Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press.
Freud, S. (1927). Some psychological consequences of the anatomical distinction between the sexes. The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, VIII, 133-142. 148
Funkensteln, D. H., King, S. H., & Drolette, M. E. (1954). The direction of anger during a laboratory stress-inducing situation. Psycho somatic Medicine, 16, 404-413.
Galassl, J. P., DeLo, J. P. S., Galassl, M. D., & Bastlen, S. (1974). The college self-expression scale: A measure of assertiveness. Behavior Therapy. 165-171.
Gentry, W. D., Chesney, A. P., Gary, H. G., Hall, R. P., & Harburg, E. (1982). Habitual anger-coping styles: I. Effect on mean blood pressure and risk for essential hypertension. Psychosomatic Medicine, 44, 195-202,
Gilbert, L. A. (1980). Feminist therapy. In A. M. Brodsky & R. T. Hare-Mustin (Eds.), Women and psychotherapy; An assessment of research and practice (pp. 245-265). New York; Guilford Press.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press.
Gough, H. G. (1975). California psychological inventory manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Griscom, J. L. (1979). Sex, race and class: Three dimensions of women's experience. The Counseling Psychologist. 9^, 10-11.
Grosch, M. (1958). Uber hypochondrie. Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine, 195-205.
Guttentag, M., & Salasln, S. (1976). Women, men and mental health. In L. A. Carter & A. F. Scott (Eds.), Women and men; Changing roles, relationships, and perceptions (pp. 153-179). New York; Aspen Institute.
Guttentag, M., Salasln, S., & Belle, D. (1980). The mental health of women. New York: Academic Press.
Harburg, E., Erfurt, J. C., Hauenstein, L. S., Chape, C., Schull, W. J., & Schork, M. A. (1973). Socio-ecologlcal stress, suppressed hostility, skin color, and black-white male blood pressure; Detroit. Psychosomatic Medicine, 35, 276-296.
Harris, I. D. (1951). Mood, anger, and somatic dysfunction. Journal of Nervous Mental Disorders, 113, 152-158.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKlnley, J. C. (1951). Minnesota multiphasic personality Inventory manual. New York: The Psychological Corpora tion. 149
Hellbrun, A. B., Jr. (1981). Gender differences In the functional linkage between androgyny, social cognition, and competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1106-1^118.
Hutzell, R. R. (1985). Review of the Interpersonal behavior survey. In J. V. Mitchell (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook. Volume I. Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press.
Jordan, J., Surrey, J., & Kaplan, A. (1982). Empathy and the female self: Implications for therapy. Work In progress. Wellesley, MA: Stone Center for Developmental Services and Studies of Wellesley College.
Kaplan, A. (1986). The "self-ln-relatlon:" Implications for depres sion In women. Psychotherapy, 23, 234-242.
Kaplan, A., Brooks, B., McComb, A. L., Shapiro, E. R., & Sodano, A. (1983). Women and anger in psychotherapy. Women and Therapy, 2, 29-40.
Kaplan, A. G., & Yaslnskl, L. (1980). Psychodynamic perspectives. In A. M. Brodsky & R. T. Hare-Mustln (Eds.), Women and psycho therapy: An assessment of research and practice (pp. 191-215). New York: Guilford Press.
Kellner, R., Slocumb, J., Wiggins, R. G., Abbott, P. J., Wlnslow, W. W., & Pathak, D. (1985). Hostility, somatic symptoms, and hypo- chondrlcal fears and beliefs. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 17, 554-560.
Kelman, H. (1967). Feminine psychology. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Knott, P. D. (1970). A further methodological study of the measure ment of interpersonal aggression. Psychological Reports, 26, 807-809.
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press.
Lehrman, H. (1974, September). What happens in feminist therapy? Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.
Lemkau, J. P., & Landau, C. (1986). The "selfless syndrome:" As sessment and treatment considerations. Psychotherapy, 23, 227-
Lerner, H. (1977). The taboos against female anger. Menninger Perspective, Winter, 5-11. 150,
Lerner, H. E. (1980). Internai prohibitions against female anger. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 40, 137-148.
Lerner, H. G. (1985). The dance of anger. New York; Harper & Row.
Lippa, R. (1985). Review of Bern sex-role inventory. In J. V. Mitchell, Jr. (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook. Volume I. Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press.
Lubinski, D., Tellegen, A., & Butcher, J. N. (1981). The relationship between androgyny and subjective indicators of emotional well- being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 722- 730.
Major, B., Carnevale, P. J. D., & Deaux, K. (1981). A different perspective on androgyny: Evaluations of masculine and feminine personality characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 988-1001.
Maracek, J., Kravetz, D., & Finn, S. (1979). A comparison of women who enter feminist therapy and traditional therapy. Journal of Con sulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 734-742.
Mauger, P. A., & Adkinson, D. R. (1980). Interpersonal behavior survey (IBS) manual. Los Angeles, CA; Western Psychological Services.
Mauger, P. A., Adkinson, D. R., Zoss, S. K., Firestone, G., & Hook, D. (1980). Interpersonal behavior survey (IBS). Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Mednick, M. T. S. (1978). Psychology of women: Research issues and trends. New York Academy of Science Small Antials, 30, 77-92.
Metcalfe, M., & Goldman, E. (1965). Validation of an inventory for measuring depression. British Journal of Psychiatry, 111, 240- 242.
Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Miller, J. B. (1983). The construction of anger in women and men. Work in progress. Wellesley, MA: Stone Center for Developmental Services and Studies of Wellesley College.
Nutt, R. L. (1979). Review and preview of attitudes and values of counselors of women. Counseling Psychologist, S, 18-20.
Orlinsky, D. E., & Howard, K. I. (1980). Gender and psychotherapeutic outcome. In A. M. Brodsky & R. T. Hare-Mustin (Eds.), Women and 151
Psychotherapy; An assessment of research and practice (pp. 3-34). New York: Guilford Press.
Parlee, M. B. (1979, September). The psychology of women; Phenomena in search of a paradigm. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York.
Payne, F. D. (1985). Review of Bern sex-role inventory. In J, V. Mitchell, Jr. (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook. Volume I. Lincoln, NE; The University of Nebraska Press.
Petzel, T. P., & Michaels, E. J. (1973). Perceptions of violence as a function of levels of hostility. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 35-36.
Phares, E. J. (1984). Sex roles. In E. J. Phares (Ed.), Introduction to personality (pp. 582-611). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Pollans, C. H. (1983). The psychometric properties and factor structure of the anger expression scale. Unpublished master's thesis. University of South Florida.
President's Commission on Mental Health: Subpanel on the Mental Health of Women. (1978), Report to the President, Volume III. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 1022-1116.
Rado, S. (1956). Psychoanalysis of behavior. New York; Grune & Stratton.
Rathus, S. A. (1973). A 30-ltem schedule for assessing assertive be havior. Behavior Therapy, 398-406.
Rawlings, E. I., & Carter, D. K. (1977). Psychotherapy for women; Treatment toward equality, Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Renson, G. L., Adams, J. E., & Tinklenberg, J. R. (1978). Buss-Durkee assessment and validation with violent versus nonviolent chronic alcohol abusers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 360-361.
Reynolds, W. M., & Gould, J. W. (1981). A psychometric investigation of the standard and short form Beck depression Inventory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 306-307,
Richardson, M. S., & Johnson, M. (1984). Counseling women. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 832-877). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Ferguson, M. L. (1978). Developing a measure of loneliness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42, 290-294. 152
Scarf, M. (1980). Unfinished business; Pressure points In the lives of women. New York: Ballantlne Books.
Schaefer, A., Brown, J., Watson, C. G., Plemel, D., DeMotts, J., Howard, M. T., Petrlk, N., & Ballewlg, B. J. (1985). Comparison of the validities of the Beck, Zung, and MMPl depression scales. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 415-418.
Schechter, M. D., & Rand, M. J. (1974). Effects of acute deprivation of smoking on aggression and hostility. Psychopharmacologia, 35, 19-28.
Schwaub, J. J., Blalow, M. R., & Holzer, C. E. (1967). A comparison of the rating scales for depression. Journal of Clinical Psychology, W, 94-96.
Shaw, J. S. (1982). Psychological androgyny and stressful life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 43, 145-153.
Smith, M. L. (1980). Sex bias in counseling and psychotherapy. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 392-407.
Spence, J., Helmrelch, R., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 32, 29-39.
Spielberger, C. D. (1980). Preliminary manual for the state-trait anger scale (STAS). Tampa, FL: Center for Research in Community Psychology.
Spielberger, C. D. (1986). The anger expression (AX) scale. Tampa, FL: Center for Research in Behavioral Medicine and Community Psychology.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R, L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Also, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Spielberger, C. D., Jacobs, G., Crane, R., Russell, S., Westberry, L., Barker, L., Johnson, E., Knight, J., & Marks, E. (1979). Preliminary manual for the state-trait personality inventory (STPI). Tampa, FL: University of South Florida Human Resources Institute.
Spielberger, C. D., Jacobs, 6., Russell, S., & Crane, R. S. (1983). Assessment of anger: The state-trait anger scale. In J. N. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality as sessment: Volume 2 (pp. 159-187). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA. 153a
Splelberger, C. D., Johnson, E. H., Russell, S. F., Crane, F. J., Jacobs, G. A., & Worden, T. J. (1985). The experience and expres sion of anger: Construction and validation of an anger expression scale. In M. A. Chesney & R. H. Rosenman (Eds.), Anger and hostility in cardiovascular and behavioral disorders (pp. 5-30). New York; McGraw-Hill.
Spielberger, C. D., & London, P. (1982). Rage Boomerangs: A key to preventing coronaries is emerging: Learn to handle anger and avoid seven deadly responses. American Health, 1^, 52-56.
Spielberger, C. D., Peters, R. A., & Frain, F. (1981). Curiosity and anxiety. In H. G. Voss & H. Keller (Eds.), Curiosity research; Basic concepts and results. Weinheim, Federal Republic of Germany: Beltz.
Statistical Analysis Sytem. (1985). SAS user's guide; Statistics. Gary, NC: SAB Institute, Inc.
Strachey, J. (1966). Introductory lectures on psychoanalysis. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. (Original work published 1917.)
Strahan, R. F. (1982, August). Methods for the measurement and statistical analysis of psychological androgyny. Paper presented at the 90th Annual Convention of the American Psychological As sociation, Washington, DC.
Tanabe, K. (1973). A clinical study on hypochrondriasis. Kyushv Neuro-Psychlatry. 19, 73-109.
Tangrl, S. S., & Strasburg, G. L. (1979). Can research on women be more effective in shaping policy? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 3, 321-343.
Tavrls, C. (1982, November). Anger defused. Psychology Today, pp. 25-35.
Wahl, C. W. (1963). Unconscious factors in the psychodynamlcs of the hypochrondrlacal patient. Psychosomatlcs, 9-14.
Waterman, A. S., & Whitbourne, S. K. (1982). Androgyny and psycho social development among college students and adults. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50. 121-133.
Weissman, M., Fox, K., & Klerman, G. L. (1973). Hostility and depres sion associated with suicide attempts. American Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 450-455.
Weissman, M., & Klerman, G. L. (1977). Sex differences and the epidemiology of depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 34, 128, 41-46. 153b
Welssman, M. M., Klerman, G. L., & Paykel, E. S. (1971). Clinical evaluation of hostility in depression. American Journal of Psychiatry, 128, 261-266.
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.
Westkott, M. (1986). Historical and developmental roots of female dependency. Psychotherapy, 23, 213-220.
Wetzel, J. W. (1984). Clinical handbook of depression. New York: Gardner Press.
Worrell, J. (1976, April). Issues in counseling women. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.
Worrell, J. (1981). New directions in counseling women. In E. Howell & M. Hayes (Eds.), Women and mental health. New York; Basic Books.
Young, L. (1976). Personality characteristics of high and low aggres sive adolescents in residential treatment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 814-817.
Zung, W. W. K. (1974). The measure of affects: Depression and anxiety. In P. Pichot (Ed.), Psychological measurements in psychopharmacology: Modern problems in pharmacopsychiatry (Volume 7). Basel, Switzerland: Karger. 154a
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am Indebted and wish to express my sincere appreciation to my
major professor, Dr. Douglas L. Epperson, for his unending support
and guidance, not only throughout the writing of this dissertation,
but throughout my entire program as well. Doug exemplifies what is
truly meant by a mentor of the highest quality. I am also indebted
to Dr. Frederick H. Borgen for his enthusiastic support and direction
throughout this and all phases of my academic career at Iowa State.
Gratitude is also extended to Dr. Robert F. Strahan, for his helpful
suggestions and support, especially in reference to the statistical
analysis of this dissertation. Appreciation is also extended to Drs.
Craig M. Allen and Rosalie H. Norem, for their helpful suggestions and
guidance, particularly in the initial phases of this study.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation of my parents,
Richard and Elizabeth Kopper, for their sacrifice, guidance, and
unending support. Their dedication and commitment to their children
and education has made this all possible. I am also grateful for
the support of my brother and sister, Craig Kopper and Jill Sheffler.
And last, but not least, my sincere appreciation and special thanks
for my husband, Carroll Roland, for his unfailing support, encouragement,
and strength in surviving this ordeal.
Finally, I would like to extend a special thanks to two of my
friends, Beverly Westra and Alice Hyland, for their encouragement, help, and humor. I would also like to thank Letha DeMoss for preparing
this manuscript — her work is beyond compare. I am also grateful to 154b the Human Subjects for Research Review Committee of Iowa State University for their review and approval of this study. 155
APPENDIX A.
TEST BOOKLET PLEASE NOTE:
Copyrighted materials in this document have not been filmed at the request of the author. They are available for consultation, however, in the author's university library.
These consist of pages;
P. 156-183 184
APPENDIX B.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TESTING BOOKLET ADMINISTRATION 185
INSTRUCTIONS FOR TESTING BOOKLET ADMINISTRATION
GOOD MORN ING/AFTERNOON! My name is and I'd like to thank you all for coming today. This is experiment 11 and I will be asking you to fill out several questionnaires contained in a testing booklet. I appreciate your willingness to take the time to complete this booklet - it should take approximately 1 1/2 to 2 hours.
I would like you to now look at the first page that you have titled "CONSENT FORM". Your participation in this study is voluntary and you are free to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation in the study at any time. Please read through the CONSENT FORM now. If you have any questions at this time or at a later time, simply raise your hand and I will be glad to respond. If there are no (more) questions and if you agree to participate in this study, please sign and date the Consent Form in the spaces provided at the bottom of the form. When you have finished, please hand the Consent Forms forward to me. By handing in your consent form, there will be no name or other personal identification associated with your responses. This is another way to make sure that the information you provide is anonymous and remains confidential.
(SUBJECTS READ, SIGN, AND HAND IN CONSENT FORMS)
On the next page, you will find a FEEDBACK SHEET. If you do desire feedback regarding the results of your questionnaires, record the number on your answer sheet on the FEEDBACK SHEET and take it with you. This number is the only means of identifying which questionnaires are yours. This sheet will also tell you how to go about obtaining feedback. Whether you decide to obtain feedback is totally voluntary and up to you. You are under no obligation to do so.
There are several questionnaires contained in your booklet, each with their own instructions. Please carefully read and follow instructions. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one question. Mark all answers on the appropriate answer sheet using a number 2 pencil. Do NOT fill in your name, sex, birth date, identification number, or special codes. I would like you to now fill in a number under the GRADE CATEGORY using the following code: IsFRESHMAN
2=SOPHOMORE
3=JUNI0R
4=SENI0R
5=0THER
(SUBJECTS FILL IN GRADE NUMBER) 186
Please begin now by reading carefully the instructions for the questionnaires and marking your responses on the appropriate answer sheet. When you have responded to all of the questions, return all materials to me. Please begin. 187
APPENDIX C.
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR
SAMPLE VARIABLES BY SEX SAS
SEX=i; WOMEN
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
10 GRADE RACE AGE MARITAL DADEO MOMEO HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS STAST
ID 1.00000 -0.02323 0.01549 -0.01099 0.03203 O.OOOO 0.7204 0.8105 0.8650 0.6200 0.2708 0.9479 0.7800 0.9052 0.6367 0.7179 0.9425 O.1924 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
GRADE -0.02323 1.00000 0.09934 0.55932 0.19323 0.01098 O.10736 -O.12861 -0.03154 -O.04511 -0.06983 0.7204 O.OOOO 0.1249 0.0001 0.0026 O.1564 O. 1588 0.8668 0.0977 0.0466 0.6268 . 0.4867 0.2813 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 236 239 240 240 240 240
RACE 0.01549 0.09934 1.00000 0.15846 0.11563 O.01881 -0.04651 0.03507 -O.10594 0.01262 0.10756 0.8105 O.1249 O.OOOO 0.0136 0.0726 0.9104 0.1494 0.7728 0.4724 0.5872 0.1001 0.8452 0.0950 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
AGE -0.01099 0.55932 0.15846 1.00000 -0.00339 0.8650 0.0001 0.0136 O.OOOO 0.9581 0.8357 0.4079 0.2549 0.8745 O.1654 0.2129 0.4788 0.4771 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
MARITAL 0.03203 0.19323 O.11563 -0.00339 1.00000 0.6200 0.0026 0.0726 0.9581 0.0000 0.0024 0.1751 0.7799 0.3353 0.2650 0.8706 0.5535 0.8336 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
DADED 0.07106 -0.09177 -0.00727 0.01340 -0.19438 1.00000 0.57466 0.18110 -O.13198 O.04661 -0.07385 -0.00420 -0.03918 0.2708 O.1564 0.9104 0.8357 0.0024 0.0000 0.0001 0.0051 0.0406 0.4704 0.2524 0.9482 0.5441 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242 00 00 MOMED -0.00422 -0.09124 -0.09296 -0.05344 -0.08745 O.57466 1-OOOOO O.12881 -O.13048 0.03367 0.03613 -0.06314 -0.07125 0.9479 O.1588 0.1494 0.4079 0.1751 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0472 0.0430 0.6023 0.5760 0.3280 0.2696 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
HOME 0.01820 0.01098 -0.01820 O. 18110 O.12881 1 OOOOO O.13771 0.07706 -0.12873 0.05945 0.01620 0.7800 0.8668 0.7728 .2549 0.7799 0.0051 0.0472 0.0000 0.0341 0.2363 0.0473 0.3612 0.8037 238 236 238 238 238 238 238 238 237 238 238 238 238
PLACE 0.00771 -0.06233 -O.13198 -O.13048 0.13771 1.00000 -0.06307 0.01810 0.08215 0.01685 0.9052 0.0977 0.4724 0.8745 0.3353 0.0406 0.0430 0.0341 O.OOOO 0.3295 0.7798 0.2038 0.7946 241 239 241 241 241 241 241 237 241 241 241 241 241
RSA -0.03051 -O.12861 O.03507 -0.08946 0.07194 0.04661 O.03367 0.07706 -0.06307 1.00000 0.12719 -0.09939 -0.10566 0.6367 0.0466 0.5872 O.1654 0.2650 0.4704 0.6023 0.2363 0.3295 O.OOOO 0.0481 0.1231 0.1011 242 240 242 - 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
RSB -0.02334 -0.03154 -0.10594 -0.08035 0.01053 -0.07385 0.03613 -0.12873 0.01810 O. 12719 1.00000 -O.11244 -0.01046 0.7179 0.6268 O.1001 0.2129 0.8706 0.2524 .5760 0.0473 0.7798 0.0481 O.OOOO 0.0809 0.8714 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
STASS -0.00466 -0.04511 0.01262 -0.04574 -O.03827 -0.00420 -0.06314 0.05945 0.08215 -O.09939 -O.11244 1.OOOOO 0.40855 0.9425 0.4867 0.8452 0.4788 0.5535 0.9482 0.3280 0.3612 0.2038 O.1231 0.0809 O.OOOO 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242 SAS
SEX=1
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO:RHO= O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
ID GRADE RACE AGE MARITAL DADED MOMED HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS STAST
STAST -0.08409 -0.06983 0.10756 0.04592 -0.01358 -0.03918 -0.07125 G.01620 0.0168S -0.10566 -0.01046 0.40855 1.00000 O.1924 0.2813 0.0950 0.4771 0.8336 0.5441 0.2696 0.8037 0.7946 0.1011 0.8714 0.0001 O.OOOO 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
AXOUT O.03248 -0.02324 0.05664 0.07445 0.05268 -0.01211 -0.04727 -0.16651 -O.00118 -0.04268 0.19936 0.26833 O.60838 0.6151 0.7202 0.3803 0.2486 0.4146 0.8513 0.4642 0.0101 0.9854 0.5087 0.0018 0.0001 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
AXIN 0.00991 -O.19251 0.02076 -0.03448 -0.07085 -0.00417 -0.01809 0.01615 -0.00274 -0.11740 0.25045 0.25460 0.30325 0.8781 0.0027 0.7479 0.5935 0.2723 0.9485 0.7795 0.8043 0.9662 0.0683 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
AXCON -0.00969 -0.09204 -O.11597 -0.09000 -0.09923 -O.06462 O.01473 0.05118 0.05881 O.28996 0.03003 -0.20724 -0.56760 0.8807 0.1552 0.0717 0.1628 0.1237 0.3168 0.8196 0.4320 0.3634 0.0001 0.6420 0.0012 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
AXEX 0.02312 -O.04467 0.09300 0.06339 O.04322 0.02643 0.03555 -0.09013 -0.03204 -0.21853 -0.03836 0.33104 0.68309 0.7205 0.4909 0.1492 0.3261 0.5034 0.6825 0.5821 O.1658 0.6207 0.0006 0.5526 0.0001 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
BOI -0.03014 -0.00732 0.07440 O.09215 O.01362 -0.07096 -0.04209 -0.11000 -0.03409 -0.07819 -O.21728 O.35278 0.50025 vo00 0.6408 0.9102 0.2489 O.1530 0.8331 0.2715 0.5146 0.0904 0.5984 0.2255 0.0007 0.0001 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
DENIAL -O.10660 0.08118 0.13046 0.05487 0.12488 -0.09700 -0.09920 0.06499 0.07559 0.14777 0.09477 -O.15218 -O.34814 0.0980 0.2102 0.0426 0.3954 0.0523 O.1324 O.1238 0.3181 0.2424 0.0215 0.1416 0.0178 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
INFREO 0.01435 -0.04818 0.24538 0.04041 -0.03903 0.03548 0.02244 O.02747 -0.03627 -O.23488 0.06316 O.16107 O.39691 0.8242 0.457S 0.0001 0.5316 0.5456 0.5829 0.7283 0.6733 0.5753 0.0002 0.3279 0.0121 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
IMPRESS -0.02710 -0.02438 0.04416 -0.09264 0.07356 -0.03045 -0.02307 0.09240 -0.06805 0.19132 0.08137 -O.19731 -0.45990 0.6749 0.7071 0.4942 0.1508 0.2543 0.6374 0.7211 0.1553 0.2927 0.0028 0.2072 0.0020 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
AGGRESS 0.08302 -0.05359 O.07156 -0.00773 -0.08100 -0.06126 -0.01481 -0.04758 0.01087 -O.46189 0.02808 0.23607 O.49464 O.1981 0.4086 0.2675 0.9048 0.2093 0.3427 0.8187 0.4651 0.8667 0.0001 0.6638 0.0002 O.OOOl 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
HOSTILST 0.06405 -0.03164 0.09280 0.04G46 -0.09226 -0.07395 -0.04059 -O.10866 0.04214 -O.39877 0.09018 O.15886 O.42744 0.3210 0.6258 O.1501 0.4719 0.1525 0.2518 0.5297 0.0944 0.5150 0.0001 0.1620 0.0134 O.OOOl 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
ANGEREX 0.04193 -0.06394 0.06977 0.04478 0.06894 -0.03336 -0.01340 -0.09784 0.01205 -O.12282 0.15662 0.36141 0.63391 0.5163 0.3239 0.2797 0.4881 0.2854 0.6056 0.8357 0.1323 0.8523 0.0564 0.0147 0.0001 O.OOOl 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
DISREGD -0.00906 -0.00181 O.17396 0.05297 -0.06817 -O.18192 -0.03963 O.12738 -O.00929 -0.38174 0.11599 0.09639 O.37851 0.8885 0.9777 0.0067 0.4120 0.2909 0.0045 0.5395 0.0497 0.8860 0.0001 0.0717 O.1349 O.OOOl 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242 SAS
SEX=1
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PRQB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
ID GRADE RACE AGE MARITAL DADED MOMED HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS STAST
VERBALAG 0.08601 -0.00051 0.02419 0.06503. -0.01018 0.00588 0.00262 -0.03381 0.04093 -0.27307 0.17972 0.17426 0.42188 O.1824 0.9938 0.7081 0.3137 0.8748 0.9275 0.9676 0.6037 0.5271 0.0001 0.0050 0.0066 0.0001 242 g40 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
PHYSAGG -0.00971 -0.01317 0.08812 O.01789 0.00476 -O.18339 -0.04767 -0.04989 0.05572 -O.15410 0.17730 0.27240 0.35099 0.8B05 0.8391 O.1718 0.7819 0.9412 0.0042 0.4604 0.4437 0.3892 0.0164 O.OOS7 0.0001 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
PASSIVAG -0.02091 -0.05632 0.13596 0.05711 -0.05653 -0.04463 -0.01668 0.01114 0.04885 -0.08688 -O.16796 0.30156 O.59951 0.7463 0.3850 0.0345 0.3764 0.3813 0.4895 0.7963 0.8643 0.4503 0.1780 0.0088 0.0001 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
ASSERT 0.04151 0.06576 -0.21778 0.03222 -0.08862 0.05970 0.06388 -O.14084 0.00511 -0.04315 O.67554 -0.06489 -0.02633 0.5204 0.3103 0.0006 0.6179 O.1694 0.3551 0.3224 0.0298 0.9372 0.5041 0.0001 0.3148 0.6837 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
SELFCONF 0.00504 0.12260 -0.04683 0.04127 0.41286 -0.24021 -O.36436 0.9378 0.0579 0.2166 0.4606 0.8378 0.9463 0.4302 0.0978 0.4693 0.5229 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
INITASS 0.01851 0.01190 -0.26270 -0.03595 -0.11705 0.08121 0.0S310 -O.11748 0.06350 O.03754 0.67193 -O.13468 -O.19344 0.7745 0.8545 0.0001 0.5779 0.0691 0.2081 0.4108 0.0704 0.3263 0.5611 0.0001 0.0363 0.0025 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242 VO DEFENASS O.04259 0.09858 -O.13449 0.01243 -0.01717 -0.0141B O.12117 -0.15467 -0.03317 -0.09031 0.53201 -0.24657 -O.12799 O 0.5096 0.1278 0.0365 0.8474 0.7905 0.8263 0.0598 0.0169 0.6084 0.1614 0.0001 0.0001 0.0467 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
FRANK -0.00575 0.09886 -0.04621 0.02652 -0.00214 0.05964 0.09487 -O.08044 -0.04101 O.01976 0.49733 -0.06275 -0.01777 0.9291 0.1267 0.4743 0.6815 0.9735 0.3556 0.1411 0.2163 0.5264 0.7597 0.0001 0.3310 0.7833 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
PRAISE 0.04691 0.08040 -0.08S58 0.02327 -0.02755 0.06252 0.10011 0.06396 -0.08461 0.13737 0.29040 -O.18431 -0.33901 0.4676 0.2146 0.1846 0.7188 0.6698 0.3328 0.1204 0.325S O.1905 0.0327 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
REOESTHE -0.03968 0.08714 -O.02666 O.04287 -0.02732 -0.06428 0.01039 -0.09293 -0.05001 -0.04136 0.28205 -O.14382 -O.15858 0.5390 0.1785 0.6799 0.5069 0.6724 0.3193 0.8722 O.1529 0.4397 O.5220 0.0001 0.02S3 0.0135 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
REFUSDEM 0.06076 0.12590 -0.20183 0.03632 0.02516 0.00921 0.06645 -0.06460 0.01971 -0.10514 0.34869 -0.17887 -0.23480 0.3466 0.0514 0.0016 0.5739 O.6970 O.8866 0.3033 0.3210 0.7G08 0.1027 0.0001 0.0053 0.0002 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
CCNFLAVD -0.06683 -0.06483 O.09954 -0.02336 0.00174 -0.05686 -0.08555 0.12975 -O.00111 0.06402 -O.51350 O.02847 -O.10052 0.3005 0.3173 O.1225 0.7177 0.978S 0.3785 O.1847 0.0455 0.9863 0.3213 0.0001 0.6594 0.1189 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
DEPENDCY -0.03455 -0.12006 0.16484 0.03549 -0.02841 0.09861 0.01966 O.13108 -0.01446 O 17877 -O.44663 O.25315 0.31795 0.5927 0.0633 0.0102 0.5827 0.6601 0.1261 0.7609 0.0434 0.8232 0.0053 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242 I SAS
SEX=1
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
ID GRADE RACE AGE MARITAL DADED MOMEO HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS STAST
SHY -O.04913 0.04774 0.20063 0.03613 0.09791 -0.13239 -0.09674 0.06826 -0.08706 -O.18794 -O.45369 0.13261 0.22431 0.4468 0.4617 0.0017 0.5759 0.1288 0.0396 0.1334 0.2943 0.1780 0.0033 0.0001 0.0393 0.0004 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
ASSAULT -0.00202 -0.07521 0.08914 -O.10195 0.02861 -0.06772 0.02171 -0.02060 -0.08574 -0.08661 0.17088 0.16361 0.42009 0.9751 0.2457 0.1669 0.1137 0.6578 0.2940 0.7369 0.7518 0.1846 0.1793 0.0077 0.0108 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
INDIRHOS -0.06965 -0.10060 -0.02392 -0.00419 0.04177 0.10610 0.02850 -0.07772 0.00998 0.00131 -0.01900 0.24386 0.35781 0.2805 0.1201 0.7112 0.9483 0.5179 0.0996 0.6591 0.2323 0.8775 0.9839 0.7687 0.0001 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
IRRITBLE -0.02145 -0.06668 -0.01009 0.08530 -0.03234 -0.00037 -0.00295 -0.03821 0.01248 -0.17354 -0.14033 0.32411 0.59666 0.7399 0.3036 0.8759 0.1860 0.6167 0.9954 0.9636 0.5575 0.8471 0.0068 0.0291 0.0001 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
NEGATIVE -0.03965 0.01603 0.06509 0.13103 0.00107 -0.04579 -0.01811 -0.12070 -0.05055 -0.19446 0.08085 0.11733 0.33432 0.5393 0.8049 0.3132 0.0417 0.9868 0.4783 0.7793 0.0630 0.4347 0.0024 0.2101 0.0684 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
RESENT -O.07826 -0.02998 0.00469 0.06128 -0.10292 -0.12986 -0.08170 -0.05437 0.02870 -0.09328 -O.12401 0.32402 0.52981 0.22S1 0.6440 0.9421 0.3425 O.1103 0.043G 0.2053 0.4038 0.6576 0.1480 0.0540 0.0001 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
SUSPICIN -0.01983 -0.10242 O.10268 -0.05637 -O.11765 -0.09001 -0.01030 -0.02741 -0.03347 -0.05684 -0.06827 0.26211 O.45974 0.7590 0.1135 0.1111 0.3826 0.0677 0.1628 0.8733 0.6739 0.6052 0.3787 0.2902 0.0001 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
VERBLHOS 0.01001 0.03834 0.01412 -0.00919 0.07217 -O.06309 -0.00289 -0.12375 0.03553 -O.11967 O.36368 O.10773 0.43385 0.8768 0.5544 0.8270 0.8870 0.2634 0.3284 0.9644 0.0566 0.5831 0.0631 0.0001 0.0945 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
GUILT -0.04986 -0.16440 0.06778 -O.10331 0.01034 -0.00480 -0.05001 0.12357 0.08914 0.09012 -0.17826 0.20715 0.32613 0.4400 0.0107 0.2936 0.1089 0.8729 0.9407 0.4386 0.0570 0.1678 0.1623 0.0054 0.0012 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
TOTLHOST -0.04956 -0.09795 0.05848 -0.00978 -0.02008 -0.06144 -0.02273 -0.06207 0.00749 -0.12019 0.02117 0.35190 0.69693 0.4428 0.1302 0.3651 0.8797 0.7559 0.3412 0.7249 0.3404 0.9079 0.0619 0.7431 0.0001 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 241 242 242 242 242
SEXROLE 0.06089 0.04778 -O.12755 -0.00714 -0.04085 -0.00833 0.05413 -0.04802 -0.03256 0.0482S 0.51411 -0.15773 -0.06613 •0.3755 0.4889 0.0625 0.9173 0.5523 0.9036 0.4308 0.4889 0.6365 0.4826 0.0001 0.0210 0.3357 214 212 214 214 214 214 214 210 213 214 214 214 214
AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BOX DENIAL INFREO IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGD VERBALAG
ID 0.03248 O.00991 -O.00969 O.02312 -0.03014 -0.10660 0.01435 -0.02710 0.08302 0.06405 0.04193 -0.00906 0.08601 0.6151 0.8781 0.8807 0.7205 0.6408 0.0980 0.8242 0.6749 0.1981 0.3210 0.5163 0.8885 0.1824 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 SAS
SEX=1
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREO IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST1 ANGEREX DISREGD VERBALAG
GRADE -0.02324 -0.19251 -0.09204 -0.04467 -0.00732 0.08118 -0.04818 -0.02438 -0.05359 -0.03164 -0.06394 -0.00181 -0.00051 G.7202 0.0027 0.1552 0.4909 0.9102 0.2102 0.4575 0.7071 0.4086 0.6258 0.3239 0.9777 0.9938 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240
RACE 0.05664 0.02076 -0.11597 0.09300 0.07440 0.13046 0.24538 0.04416 0.07156 0.09280 0.06977 0.17396 0.02419 0.3803 0.7479 0.0717 O.1492 0.2489 0.0426 0.0001 0.4942 0.2675 O.1501 0.2797 0.0067 0.7081 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
AGE 0.07445 -0.03448 -0.09000 O.06339 0.09215 -O.05487 0.04041 -0.09264 -0.00773 0.04646 0.04478 0.05297 0.06503 0.2486 0.5935 0.1628 0.3261 0.1530 0.3954 0.5316 0.1508 0.9048 0.4719 0.4881 0.4120 0.3137 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
MARITAL 0.05268 -0.07085 -0.09923 O.04322 0.01362 0.12488 -0.03903 0.07356 -0.08100 -0.09226 0.06894 -0.06817 -0.01018 0.4146 0.2723 0.1237 0.5034 0.8331 0.0523 0.5456 0.2543 0.2093 O.1525 0.2854 0.2909 0.8748 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
OADED -0.01211 -0.00417 -0.C6462 0.02643 -0.07096 -0.09700 0.03548 -0.03045 -0.06126 -0.07395 -0.03336 -0.18192 0.00588 0.8513 0.9485 0.3168 0.6825 0.2715 O.1324 0.5829 0.6374 0.3427 0.2518 0.6056 0.0045 0.9275 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
MOMED -0.04727 -0.01809 0.01473 -0.03555- -0.04209 -0.09920 0.02244 -0.02307 -0.01481 -O.04059 -0.01340 -O.03963 0.00262 0.4642 0.7795 0.8196 0.5821 0.5146 O.1238 0.7283 0.7211 0.8187 0.5297 0.8357 0.5395 0.9676 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
HOME -0.16651 0.01615 0.05118 -0.09013 -0.11000 0.06499 0.02747 0.09240 -0.04758 -0.10866 -0.09784 -O.12738 -0.03381 0.0101 0.8043. 0.4320 O. 1658 0.0904 0.3181 0.6733 0.1553 0.4651 0.0944 0.1323 0.0497 0.6037 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238
PLACE -O.00118 -O.00274 0.05881 -0.03204 -0.03409 0.07S59 -0.03627 -O.06805 0.01087 0.04214 0.01205 -0.00929 0.04093 0.9854 0.9662 0.3634 0.6207 0.5984 0.2424 0.5753 0.2927 0.8667 0.5150 0.8523 0.8860 0.5271 241 241 241 241 241 241 241 241 241 241 241 241 241
RSA -0.04268 -0.11740 0.28996 -0.21853 -0.07819 0.14777 -0.23488 0.19132 -0.46189 -0.39877 -O.12282 -O.38174 -0.27307 0.5087 0.0683 0.0001 0.0006 0.2255 0.0215 0.0002 0.0028 0.0001 0.0001 0.0564 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
RSB O.19936 -0.25045 0.03003 -O.03836 -O.21728 0.09477 0.06316 O.08137 0.02808 0.09018 0. 15662 O. 11599 O.17972 0.0018 0.0001 0.6420 0.5526 0.0007 0. 1416 0.3279 0.2072 0.6638 0. 1620 0.0147 0.0717 0.0050 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
STASS O.26833 0.25460 -0.20724 0.33104 0.35278 -O.15218 O.16107 -O.19731 0.23607 0.15886 0.36141 0.09639 0.17426 0.0001 0.0001 0.0012 0.0001 0.0001 0.0178 0.0121 0.0020 0.0002 0.0134 0.0001 O. 1349 0.0066 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
STAST O.60838 0.30325 -0.56760 0.68309 0.50025 -0.34814 0.39691 -O.45990 0.49464 0.42744 0.63391 0.37851 0.42188 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
AXOUT 1.OOOOO O.10966 -0.54919 0.75716 0.21742 -0.22421 0.29383 -O.35503 0.35860 0.34038 O.66383 0.34874 0.41675 0.0000 0.0887 0.0001 0.0001 0.0007 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 SAS
SEX=1
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO;RHO =0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREQ IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGD VERBALAG
AXIN 0.10966 1.00000 -0.18886 0.57479 0.43222 -0.24791 0. 14035 -0.25782 0.25394 0.23991 O.18592 0.19624 0.08812 0.0887 O.OOOO 0.0032 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0290 0.0001 6.0001 0.0002 0.0037 0.0022 0.1718 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
AXCON -O.54919 -O.18886 1.00000 -O.83201 -0.28844 O.28691 -0.30679 0.42082 -O.36641 -0.30676 -O.53365 -0.29385 -0.35281 0.0001 0.0032 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
AXEX 0.75716 O.57479 -0.83201 1.OOOOO 0.42775 -0-35051 0.34415 -O.47972 O.45146 0.40684 O.63868 0.38493 0.39784 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
BDI 0.21742 0.43222 -0.28844 0.42775 1 OOOOO -0.14329 0.23487 -0.31176 0.21865 0.17347 0.33838 0.15484 0.08875 0.0007 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0258 0.0002 0.0001 0.0006 0.0068 0.0001 0.0159 0-1687 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
DENIAL -0.22421 -O.24791 0.28691 -O.35051 -0.14329 1 OOOOO -0.13287 0.38501 -0.48766 -0.42331 -0.32617 -0.20847 -O.34926 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0258 O.OOOO 0.0389 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0011 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
INFREQ 0.29383 O.14035 -0.30679 0.34415 0.23487 -0.13287 1.00000 -0.27811 0.47756 0.36267 0.39759 0.37745 0.54631 0.0001 0.0290 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0389 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
IMPRESS -0.35503 -0.25782 0.42082 -0.47972 -0.31176 0.38501 -0.27811 1.00000 -0.45346 -0.34550 -O.51733 -O.21337 -0.40707 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0008 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
AGGRESS 0.35860 0.25394 -O.36641 0.45146 0.21865 -0.48766 0.47756 -0.45346 1 OOOOO 0.86926 0.55985 0.62369 0.69190 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0006 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
HOSTILST 0.34038 0.23991 -0.30676 0.40684 0.17347 -0.42331 0.36267 -0.34550 0.86926 1.00000 O.45081 O.74945 O.63857 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0068 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
ANGEREX 0.66383 0. 18592 -0.53365 0.63868 0.33838 -0.32617 0.39759 -O.51733 0.55985 0.45081 1.OOOOO 0.35708 0.57780 0.0001 0.0037 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
DISREGD 0.34874 0.19624 -0.29385 0.38493 0.15484 -0.20847 0.37745 -0.21337 0.62369 O.74945 O.35708 1.OOOOO 0.42041 0.0001 0.0022 0.0001 0.0001 0.0159 0.0011 0.0001 0.0008 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
VERBALAG 0.41675 O.08812 -0.35281 0.39784 0.08875 -O.34926 O.54631 -0.40707 0.69190 0.63857 O.57780 0.42041 1 OOOOO 0.0001 O.1718 0.0001 0.0001 O.1687 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
PHYSAGG 0.33464 0. 13216 -0.24252 O.32482 0.23301 -O.18916 O.36183 -0.13189 0.49169 O.47949 0.49823 0.46552 0.38680 0.0001 0.0399 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 0.0031 0.0001 0.0404 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 SAS
SEX=1
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO.RHO^O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREQ IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGD VERBALAG
PASSIVAG 0.36326 0.47534 -O.36804 0.54959 O.58609 -0.33062 0.32940 -0.47310 0.49625 O.44190 O.50959 0.33236 0.35623 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
ASSERT 0.15403 -0.27497 -0.01954 -0.04262 -O.15946 -O.03822 0.12124 -0.01862 0.06326 0.17995 0.16123 0.15540 0.29198 0.0165 0.0001 0.7623 0.5093 0.0130 0.5540 0.0597 0.7732 0.3271 0.0050 0.0120 0.0155 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
SELFCONF -0.06812 -0.46466 0.12935 -0.29589 -0.45804 O.16282 -0.14127 0.27703 -O.17278 -0.01453 -O.17323 0.03505 0.02473 0.2912 0.0001 0.0444 0.0001 0.0001 0.0112 0.0280 0.0001 0.0071 0.8221 0.0069 0.5875 0.7019 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 2*42 242 242
INITASS 0.01456 -O.27444 O.12313 -O.17555 -O.20538 0.07292 -0.00908 O.11531 -0.10709 -0.01282 0.01514 0.00626 0.07783 0.8217 0.0001 0.0558 0.0062 0.0013 0.2585 0.8882 0.0734 0.0965 0.8427 0.8147 0.9228 0.2277 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
DEFENASS 0.12387 0.41926 -0.03732 -0.10841 -0.30414 0.01561 -0.00302 0.04498 O.01657 0.10507 0.03952 0.14158 0.18254 0.0543 0.0001 0.5634 0.0924 0.0001 0.8091 0.9628 0.4861 0.7976 0.1030 0.5406 0.0276 0.0044 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
FRANK 0.24990 -0.44710 O.06091 -0.05448 -0.23538 0.06296 O.10986 -O.01598 0.01846 0.05197 O.17390 O.05215 O.29599 0.0001 0.0001 0.3454 0.3988 0.0002 0.3294 0.0881 0.8047 0.7751 0.4209 0.0067 0.4193 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 H» \o PRAISE -0.08049 -0.34548 O.13824 -O.25445 -O.34305 0.08611 -0.19940 O.30846 -0.22592 -0.07682 -O.16199 -0.07157 -0.01509 x> 0.2121 0.0001 0.0316 0.0001 0.0001 0.1819 0.0018 0.0001 0.0004 O 2338 0.0116 0.267S 0.8153 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
REQESTHE 0.06840 -O.38534 0.01285 -0.14337 -0.26485 0.10027 -0.12755 0.10235 0.00508 0.09778 0.01405 0.10417 O.11213 0.2892 0.0001 0.8423 0.0257 0.0001 0.1198 0.0475 O.1123 0.9374 O.1293 0.8279 O.1060 0.0817 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
REFUSDEM -0.02064 -O.35241 -0.01528 -0.15261 -0.28090 0.03340 -O.02453 0.02147 -O.03614 -0.03491 -0.02156 -0.00688 0.08860 0.7494 0.0001 0.8131 0.0175 0.0001 0.6052 0.7041 0.7397 0.5758 0.5889 0.7386 0.9152 0.1695 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
CONFLAVD -0.35983 0.37502 0.19160 -0.09091 0.15389 0.03328 -0.15231 O.13178 -O.13067 -O.15021 -O.37132 -0.13757 -0.42760 0.0001 0.0001 0.0028 0.1586 0.0166 0.6065 0.0177 0.0405 0.0423 0.0194 0.0001 0.0324 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
DEPENDCY 0.13058 O.34875 -0.07832 O.24625 0.36099 -0.16649 0.07023 -0.12917 O.10120 0.08659 0.12694 O.05325 -0.00411 0.0424 0.0001 0.2248 0.0001 0.0001 0.0095 0.2765 0.0447 0.1164 0.1794 0.0485 0.4096 0.9492 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
SHY 0.06214 0.32422 -0.16748 0.25259 0.34454 -0.07674 0.08878 0.13790 0.13892 0.02228 0.08400 0.04438 -O.04511 0.3357 0.0001 0.0090 0.0001 0.0001 0.2343 0.1686 0.0320 0.0307 0.7302 0.1928 0.4920 0.4848 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
ASSAULT O.40983 0.08519 -O.25752 O.34439 O.17062 -0.14140 O.28779 -O.11273 O.42288 0.45507 0.40440 0.38380 0-3G693 0.0001 O.1866 0.0001 0.0001 0.0078 0.0279 0.0001 0.0801 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 SAS SEX=1
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UmER HO;RHO =0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREQ IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGO VERBALAG
INDIRHOS 0.36037 0.22186 -0.35952 O.43485 0.19049 -0.38728 0.19124 -0.31215 0.33062 0.31709 0.49370 O.16535 0.28861 0.0001 0.0005 0.0001 0.0001 0.0029 0.0001 0.0028 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0100 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
IRRITBLE 0.40773 0.42112 -0.48572 0.60601 0.49078 -0.44436 0.21355 -0.46963 0.44044 0.40966 0.49642 0.32479 0.33502 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0008 O.OOOI 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
NEGATIVE 0.32146 0.08868 -0.22334 0.29058 0.20080 -0.22731 0.29498 -0.33224 0.41011 0.41150 O.26648 0.35007 O.29192 0.0001 0.1691 0.0005 0.0001 0.0017 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
RESENT 0.31104 0.39745 -0.34403 0.48141 0.18980 -0.35380 O.34837 0.30804 O.35771 0.27340 O.21769 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0030 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0006 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
SUSPICIN 0.32142 0.41699 -0.21870 0.42949 0.45691 -0.30876 O.23582 -0.37470 O.44451 O.38252 O.36487 O.33582 0.26990 0.0001 0.0001 0.0006 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOi 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 vo VERBLHOS 0.58087 -0.08236 -0.37036 0.40347 0.15640 -O.22382 O.32016 -0.27033 0.38888 0.36464 0.59607 0.33695 0.50671 m 0.0001 0.2017 0.0001 0.0001 0.0149 0.0005 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOI O.OOOI O.OOOI 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
GUILT 0.21851 O.33662 -0.08544 0.28175 0.42905 -O.16695 0. 13107 -0.20525 0.11661 0.05507 0.23315 0.02049 0.05030 0.0006 0.0001 0.1853 0.0001 0.0001 0.0093 0.0416 0.0013 0.0702 0.3937 0.0003 0.7512 0.4360 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
TOTLHOST 0.59176 O.37864 -O.47426 0.66024 0.52547 -0.43575 0.36606 -0.48082 0.57236 0.52969 0.65370 0.43178 0.46865 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOI O.OOOI O.OOOI O.OOOI O.OOOI O.OOOI 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
SEXROLE 0.11457 -0.18505 O.11040 0.08802 -O.18808 0.09097 -0.00075 0.09311 0.02106 0.05254 0.04818 0.09916 0.11252 0.0946 0.0066 O.1073 0.1996 0.0058 0.1849 0.9913 0.1747 0.7594 0.4445 0.4833 0.1483 O.1007 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214
PHYSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS DEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REOESTHE REFUSOEM GONFLAVD DEPENOCY SHY
ID -0.00971 -0.02091 0.04151 0.00504 0.01851 -O.00575 0.04691 -0.03968 0.06076 -O.06683 -0.03455 -0.04913 0.8805 0.7463 0.5204 0.9378 0.7745 0.5096 0.9291 0.4676 0.5390 0.3466 0.3005 0.5927 0.4468 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
GRADE -0.01317 -O.05632 O.06576 O.12260 0.01190 0.09858 0.09S86 0.08040 0.08714 0.12590 -0.06483 -0.12006 0.04774 0.8391 0.3850 0.3103 0.0579 0.3545 O.1278 0.1267 0.2146 0.1785 0.0514 0.3173 0.0633 0.4617 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240
RACE 0.08812 0.13596 -O.21778 -0.07972 -0.26270 -0.13449 -0.04621 -0.08558 -0.02666 0.20183 0.09954 0.16484 0.20063 0.1718 0.0345 0.0006 0.2166 O.OOOI 0.0365 0.4743 0.1846 0.6799 0.0016 0.1225 0.0102 0.0017 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 SAS
SEX=1
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROS > |R| UNDER HO:RH0=O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
PHVSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS OEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REOESTHE REFUSDEM CONFLAVD OEPENOCY SHY
AGE 0.01789 O.05711 0.03222 0.04765 -0.03595 0.01243 0.02652 0.02327 0.04287 O.03632 -O.02336 0.03549 0.03613 0.7819 0.3764 0.6179 0.4606 0.5779 0.8474 0.6815 0.7188 0.5069 0.5739 0.7177 0.5827 0.5759 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
MARITAL 0.00476 -0.05653 -0.08862 -0.01323 -0.11705 -O.01717 -0.00214 -0.02755 -0.02732 O.02516 O.00174 -0.02841 0.09791 0.9412 0.3813 O.1694 0.8378 0.0691 0.7905 0.9735 0.6698 0.6724 0.6970 0.9785 0.6601 O.1288 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
OAOEO -0.18339 -0.04463 0.05970 0.00435 0.08121 -0.01418 0.05964 0.06252 -0.06428 0.00921 -0.05686 0.09861 -0.13239 0.0042 0.4895 0.3S51 0.9463 0.2081 0.8263 0.3556 0.3328 0.3193 0.8866 0.3785 O.1261 0.0396 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
MOMED -0.04767 -0.01668 0.06388 0.05094 0.05310 0. 12117 0.09487 0.10011 0.01039 0.06645 -0.08555 0.01966 -0-09674 0.4604 0.7963 0.3224 0.4302 0.4108 0.0598 O.1411 0.1204 0.8722 0.3033 0.1847 0.7609 0.1334 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
HOME -0.04989 0.01114 -0.14084 -0.10758 -0.11748 -0.15467 -0.08044 -O.06396 -O.09293 -0.06460 O. 12975 O.13108 0.06826 0.4437 0.8643 0.0298 0.0978 0.0704 0.0169 0.2163 0.3258 0.1529 0.3210 0.0455 0.0434 0.2943 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238
PLACE 0.05572 0.04885 0.00511 -0.04683 0.06350 -0.03317 -0.04101 -0.08461 -0.05001 0.01971 -O.00111 -0.01446 -O.08706 0.3892 0.4503 0.9372 0.4693 0.3263 0.6084 0.5264 O.1905 0.4397 0.7608 0.9863 0.8232 0.1780 241 241 241 241 241 241 241 241 241 241 241 241 241
RSA -0.15410 -0.08688 -0.04315 0.04127 0.03754 -O.09031 0.01976 O.13737 -0.04136 -O.10514 0.06402 O. 17877 -O.18794 0.0164 O.1780 0.5041 0.5229 0.5611 0.1614 0.7597 0.0327 0.5220 0.1027 0.3213 0.0053 0.0033 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
RSB 0.17730 -0.16796 0.67554 0.41286 0.67193 O.53201 O.49733 0.29040 0.28205 0.34869 -0.51350 -0.44663 -O.45369 0.0057 0.0088 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
STASS 0.27240 0.30156 -0.06489 -O.24021 -O.13468 -O.24657 -0.06275 -O.18431 -O.14382 -O.17887 0.02847 O.25315 O. 13261 0.0001 0.0001 0.3148 0.0002 0.0363 0.0001 0.3310 0.0040 0.0253 0.0053 0.6594 0.0001 0.0393 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
STAST O.35099 O.S99S1 -0.02633 -O.36436 -O.19344 -O.12799 -0.01777 -0.33901 -O.15858 -0.23480 -O.10052 0.31795 0.22431 0.0001 0.0001 0.6837 0.0001 0.0025 0.0467 0.7833 0.0001 0.0135 0.0002 0. 1189 0.0001 0.0004 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
AXOUT 0.33464 0.36326 O.15403 -0.06812 0.01456 0.12387 0.24990 -O.08049 0.06840 -0.02064 -O.35983 0.13058 0.06214 0.0001 0.0001 0.0165 0.2912 0.8217 0.0543 0.0001 0.2121 0.2892 0.7494 0.0001 0.0424 0.3357 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
AXIN O.13216 0.47534 -O.27497 -O.46466 -O.27444 -O.41926 -0.44710 -0.34548 -0.38534 -0.35241 0.37502 0.34875 O.32422 0.0399 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
AXCQN -O.24252 -G.36804 -0.01954 0.12935 0.12313 -0.03732 -0.06091 0.13824 0.01285 -0.01528 0.19160 0.07832 -0.16748 0.0001 0.0001 0.7623 0.0444 0.0558 0.5634 0.3454 0.0316 0.8423 0.8131 0.0028 0.2248 0.0090 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 SAS
SEX=1
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
PHYSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS OEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REQESTHE REFUSDEM CONFLAVD DEPEWCY SHY
AXEX 0.32482 -O.17555 -0.10841 -0.05448 -0.25445 -0.14337 -0.15261 0.09091 0.24625 0.25259 0.0001 0.0001 0.5093 0.0001 0.0062 0.0924 0.3988 0.0001 0.0257 0.0175 O.1586 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
BDI 0.23301 -0.20538 -O.30414 -O.23538 -0.34305 -0.26485 -0.28090 0.15389 0.36099 0.34454 0.0003 0.0001 0.0130 0.0001 0.0013 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0166 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
DENIAL -O.18916 0.07292 0.01561 0.06296 0.08611 O.10027 0.03340 0.03328 -0.16649 -0.07674 0.0031 0.0001 0.5540 0.0112 0.2585 0.8091 0.3294 O.1819 O.1198 0.6052 0.6065 0.0095 0.2343 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
INFREO 0.36183 -0.00908 -0.00302 0.10986 -0.19940 -0.12755 -0.02453 -O.15231 0.07023 0.08878 0.0001 0.0001 0.0597 0.0280 0.8882 0.9628 0.0881 0.0018 0.0475 0.7041 0.0177 0.2765 O.1686 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
IMPRESS -0.13189 -0.47310 -0.01862 0.27703 0.11531 0.04498 -0.01598 0.30846 0.10235 -O.02147 O.13178 -O.12917 -0.13790 0.0404 0.0001 0.7732 0.0001 0.0734 0.4861 0.8047 0.0001 0.1123 0.7397 0.0405 0.0447 0.0320 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
AGGRESS 0.49169 0.49625 0.06326 -0.17278 -0.10709 0.01657 O.01846 -0.22592 0.00508 -0.03614 -0.13067 0.10120 O.13892 KO 0.0001 0.0001 0.3271 0.0071 0.0965 0.7976 0.7751 0.0004 0.9374 0.5758 0.0423 0.1164 0.0307 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
HOSTILST 0.47949 0.44190 0. 17995 -0.01453 -0.01282 0.10507 0.05197 -0.07682 0.09778 -0.03491 -0.15021 0.08659 O.02228 0.0001 0.0001 0.0050 0.8221 0.8427 0.1030 0.4209 0.2338 0.1293 0.5889 0.0194 0.1794 0.7302 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
ANGEREX 0.49823 0.50959 0.16123 -0.17323 0.01514 0.03952 O.17390 -0.16199 0.01405 -0.02156 -O.37132 0.12694 0.08400 0.0001 0.0001 0.0120 0.0069 0.8147 0.5406 0.0067 0.0116 0.8279 0.7386 0.0001 0.0485 O.1928 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
DISREGD 0.46552 O. 33236 0. 15540 0.0350S 0.00626 O. 14158 0.05215 -0.07157 O.10417 -O.00688 -0.13757 0.05325 O.04438 0.0001 0.0001 0.0155 0.5875 0.9228 0.0276 0.4193 0.2675 0.1060 0.9152 0.0324 0.4096 0.4920 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
VERBALAG 0.38680 0.35623 0.29198 0.02473 0.07783 O.18254 0.29599 -0.01509 0.11213 0.08860 -0.42760 -0.00411 -0.04511 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.7019 0.2277 0.0044 0.0001 0.8153 0.0817 O.1695 0.0001 0.9492 0.4848 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
PHYSAGG 1.OOOOO 0.36140 0.15397 -0.10731 O.04841 0.01865 0.04405 -0.10385 -0.04383 -0.07548 -0.18153 0.03239 O.05116 0.0000 0.0001 0.0165 0.0958 0.4535 0.7729 0.4952 0.1071 0.4973 0.2421 0.0046 0.6161 0.4282 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
PASSIVAG 0.36140 1.OOOOO -O.17027 -0.47154 -0.25066 -0.34810 -0.23579 -0.38849 -0.24551 -0.35988 0.16677 0.46110 O.31846 0.0001 0.0000 0.0079 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0093 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
ASSERT 0.15397 -0.17027 1.00000 0.55601 0.85961 0.63399 0.53003 0.45532 0.36229 0.44044 -0.58821 -0.37153 -O.56450 0.0165 0.0079 OOOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 SAS
SEX=1
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROS > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
PHVSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS OEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REQESTHE REFUSOEM CONFLAVD OEPENOCY SHY
SELFCONF -0.10731 -0.47154 0.55601 1 OOOOO 0.48240 0.66779 0.51382 0.80077 0.76208 O.58738 -O.46236 -O.47221 -0.46983 0.0958 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOt 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
INITASS 0.04841 -0.25066 0.85961 0.48240 1.OOOOO 0.52143 O.44578 0.41329 0.26282 0.41477 -O.47006 -0.36861 -0.60931 0.4535 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
OEFENASS 0.0186S -0.34810 0.63399 O.66779 0.52143 1.OOOOO 0.63124 0.50124 0.54840 0.62709 -O.63255 -0.48957 -0.40704 0.7729 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
FRANK 0.04405 -O.23579 0.53003 0.51382 O.44578 0.63124 1.00000 0.36865 0.43376 0.44289 -0.77244 -0.40788 -0.40284 0.4952 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 OOOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
PRAISE -O.10385 -O.38849 0.45532 0.80077 O.41329 0.50124 0.36865 1.00000 0.53307 0.38416 -0.32478 -0.23142 -0.40729 0.1071 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 OOOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
REQESTHE -0.04383 -0.24551 0.36229 0.76208 0.26282 0.54840 0.43376 0.53307 1.00000 0.47148 -O.39450 -O.33202 -O.26959 0.4973 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 OOOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
REFUSOEM -0.07548 -O.35988 0.44044 0.58738 0.41477 0.62709 0.44289 0.38416 0.47148 1.00000 -0.47941 -O.51245 -O.34613 0.2421 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 OOOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
CONFLAVD -0.18153 0.16677 -0.58821 -0.46236 -0.47006 -0.63255 -0.77244 -0.32478 -0.39450 -O.47941 1.OOOOO 0.44910 O.31844 0.0046 0.0093 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
OEPENOCY 0.03239 0.46110 -0.37153 -0.47221 -0.36861 -0.48957 -0.40788 -0.23142 -0.33202 -O.51245 0.44910 1.OOOOO O.24426 0.6161 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
SHY 0.05116 0.31846 -0.56450 -0.46983 -0.60931 -0.40704 -0.40284 -O.40729 -O.26959 -O.34613 O.31844 O.24426 1.OOOOO 0.4282 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
ASSAULT 0.54205 0.27761 0.10480 -0.08668 0.02387 0.12236 O.10864 -O.11313 0.01106 -0.07916 -O.25691 0.03822 O.07352 0.0001 0.0001 0.1039 0.1789 0.7118 0.0573 0.0917 0.0790 0.8641 0.2198 0.0001 0.5540 0.2545 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
INDIRHOS 0.30211 0.29909 0.00722 -0.15096 -0.05180 -0.04980 -0.02980 -0.09844 -0.09436 -0.04646 -0.04713 0.27068 0-00796 0.0001 0.0001 0.9111 0.0188 0.4225 0.4406 0.6446 0.1267 0.1433 0.4719 0.4655 0.0001 0.9020 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
IRRITBLE O.20175 O.58254 -O.11865 -O.33756 -O.21427 -O.19187 -O.14081 -O.25416 -O.10901 -0.17684 O.05135 0.41545 O.31632 0.0016 0.0001 0.0654 0.0001 0.0008 0.0027 0.0285 0.0001 0.0906 0.0058 0.4265 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 SAS
SEX=1
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
PHYSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS DEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REQESTHE REFUSDEM CONFL/ OEPENDCY SHY
NEGATIVE 0.28992 0.39877 0.12981 -0.00950 0.03714 0.15128 0.09010 -0.08073 0.06567 O.03309 -O.09129 O.13010 0.06562 0.0001 0.0001 0.0436 0.8831 0.5653 0.0185 0.1623 0.2108 O.3089 0.6084 0.1569 0.0432 0.3094 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
RESENT O.22857 O.67246 -0.13932 -O.40721 -0.21433 -0.28773 -O.23555 -O.31608 -0.20957 -0.30588 0.40215 0.25402 0.0003 0.0001 0.0303 0.0001 0.0008 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.0049 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
SUSPICIN 0.37593 0.69974 -0.14379 -0.42476 -0.20619 -0.30651 -0.20043 -0.35976 -0.19834 -0.33339 O.38302 0.25646 0.0001 0.0001 0.0253 0.0001 0.0013 0.0001 0.0017 0.0001 0.0019 0.0001 0.0066 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
VERBLHOS 0.38325 0.26438 0.36367 0.10180 0.24567 0.33492 O.32027 0.06705 O. 17086 0.16095 -0.04652 -O.10920 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.1142 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.2989 0.0077 0.0122 0.0001 0.4713 0.0901 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
GUILT O.13185 0.43618 -O.19416 -0.44386 -O.14573 -0.40328 -O.29647 -0.30264 -O.29999 -O.33392 0.49267 0.22981 0.0404 0.0001 0.0024 0.0001 0.0234 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 vo TOTLHOST 0.48597 0.72283 0.00076 -0.35924 -0.10536 -0.13412 -0.07728 -0.29186 -0.13523 -0.22115 0.41571 0.22096 VO 0.0001 0.0001 0.9906 0.0001 0.1020 0.0371 0.2310 0.0001 0.0355 0.0005 0.4445 0.0001 0.0005 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
SEXROLE O.13002 -0.08136 O.36405 0.25681 O.36507 0.32662 O.32135 0.17424 0.17855 0.22535 -0.18885 -0.25855 0.0576 0.2359 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0107 0.0088 0.0009 0.0001 0.0056 0.0001 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214
ASSAULT INDIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST SEXROLE
ID -0.00202 -0.06965 -0.02145 -0.03965 -0.07826 -0.01983 0.01001 -O.04986 -O.04956 0.06089 0.9751 0.2805 0.7399 0.5393 0.2251 0.7590 0.8768 0.4400 0.4428 0.3755 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
GRADE -O.07521 -O.10060 -0.06668 0.01603 -0.02998 -0.10242 0.03834 -0.16440 -0.09795 0.04778 0.2457 0.1201 0.3036 0.8049 0.6440 O.1135 0.5544 0.0107 0.1302 0.4889 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 212
RACE 0.08914 -0.02392 -O.01009 0.06509 0.00469 0.10268 0.01412 0.06778 0.05848 -0.12755 0.1669 0.7112 0.8759 0.3132 0.9421 O. 1111 0.8270 0.2936 0.3651 0.0625 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
AGE -0.10195 -0.00419 0.08530 O.13103 0.06128 -0.05637 -0.00919 -0.10331 -0.00978 -0.00714 0.1137 0.9483 0.I860 0.0417 0.3425 0.3826 0.8870 0.1089 0.8797 0.9173 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
MARITAL 0.02861 0.04177 -0.03234 0.00107 -O.10292 -O.11765 0.07217 0.01034 -0.02008 -0.04085 0.6578 0.5179 0.6167 0.9868 O.1103 0.0677 0.2634 0.8729 0.7559 0.5523 242 242 242 242 242 • 242 242 242 242 214 SAS
SEX=1
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
ASSAULT IWIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST SEXROLE
OADED -0.06772 0.10610 -O.00037 -0.04579 -0.12986 -0.09001 -0.06309 -0.00480 -O.06144 -0.00833 0.2940 0.0996 0.99S4 0.4783 0.0436 0.1628 0.3284 0.9407 0.3412 0.9036 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
MOWED 0.02171 0.02850 -0.00295 -0.01811 -0.08170 -0.01030 -0.00289 -0.05001 -0.02273 O.05413 0.7369 0.6591 0.9636 0.7793 0.2053 0.8733 0.9644 0.4386 0.7249 0.4308 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
HOME -0.02060 -0.07772 -0.03821 -0.12070 -0.05437 -0.02741 -0.12375 0.12357 -0.06207 -0.04802 0.7518 0.2323 0.5575 0.0630 0.4038 0.6739 0.0566 0.0570 0.3404 0.4889 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 210
PLACE -0.08574 0.00998 0.01248 -0.05055 0.02870 -0.03347 0.03553 O.08914 0.00749 -0.03256 O.1846 0.8775 0.8471 0.4347 0.6576 0.6052 0.5831 0.1678 0.9079 0.6365 241 241 241 241 241 241 241 241 241 213
RSA -0.08661 0.00131 -0.17354 -0.19446 -0.09328 -0.05684 -0.11967 O.09012 -0.12019 0.04825 O.1793 0.9839 0.0068 0.0024 O.1480 0.3787 0.0631 O.1623 0.0619 0.4826 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
RSB O.17088 -0.01900 -O.14033 0.08085 -O.12401 -0.06827 0.36368 -O.17826 0.02117 0.51411 0.0077 0.7687 0.0291 0.2101 0.0S40 0.2902 0.0001 0.0054 0.7431 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214 ONJ STASS 0.16361 0.24386 0.32411 0.11733 0.32402 0.26211 0.10773 0.20715 0.35190 -0.15773 O 0.0108 0.0001 0.0001 0.0684 0.0001 0.0001 0.0945 0.0012 0.0001 0.0210 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
STAST O.42009 0.35781 O.59666 O.33432 O.52981 0.45974 0.43385 0.32613 0.69693 -0.06613 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.3357 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
AXOUT 0.40983 0.36037 O.40773 O.32146 0.31104 0.32142 0.58087 O.21851 0.59176 0.11457 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0006 0.0001 0.0946 242 242 242 242 242 242 , 242 242 242 214
AXIN O.08519 0.22186 0.42112 0.08868 0.39745 0.41699 -0.08236 0.33562 0.37864 -0.18505 0.1866 0.0005 0.0001 0.1691 0.0001 0.0001 0.2017 0.0001 0.0001 0.0066 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
AXCON -0.25752 -0.35952 -0.48572 -0.22334 -0.34403 -0.21870 -0.37036 -0.08544 -O.47426 0.11040 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0005 0.0001 0.0006 0.0001 0.18S3 0.0001 0.1073 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
AXEX 0.34439 0.43485 0.60601 0.29058 0.48141 0.42949 0.40347 O.28175 0.66024 -0.0B802 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.1996 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
BDI 0.17062 0.19049 0.49078 0.20080 0.50195 0.45691 O. 15640 0.42905 O.52547 -O.18808 0.0078 0.0029 0.0001 0-0017 0.0001 0.0001 0.0149 0.0001 0.0001 0.0058 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214 SEX=1
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
ASSAULT INDIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST SEXROLE
DENIAL -0.14140 -O.38728 -0.44436 -O.22731 -0.28760 -0.30876 -0.22382 -O.16695 -O.43575 O.09097 • 0.0279 0.0001 0.0001 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0005 0.0093 0.0001 O.1849 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
INFREQ 0.28779 O.19124 O.21355 O.29498 O.18980 O.23582 0.32016 O.13107 O.36606 -0.00075 0.0001 0.0028 0.0008 0.0001 0.0030 0.0002 0.0001 0.0416 0.0001 0.9913 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
IMPRESS -O. 11273 -O.31215 -O.33224 -0.35380 -O.37470 0.27033 -0.20525 -0.48082 0.09311 0.0801 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0013 0.0001 O.1747 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
AGGRESS O.42288 0.33062 0.44044 0.41011 O.34837 0.44451 0.38888 O.11661 0.57236 0.02106 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 Ô.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0702 0.0001 0.7594 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
HOSTILST O.45507 0.31709 0.40966 0.41150 0.30804 0.38252 0.36464 0.05507 0.52969 0.05254 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.3937 0.0001 0.4445 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
ANGEREX 0.40440 0.49370 0.49642 0.26648 0.35771 O.36487 0.59607 0.23315 0.65370 0.04818 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.4833 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
DISREGD 0.38380 0.16535 0.32479 0.35007 0.27340 0.33582 0.33695 0.02049 0.43178 0.09916 0.0001 0.0100 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.7512 0.0001 O.1483 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
VERBALAG 0.36693 0.28861 0.33502 0.29192 0.21769 0.26990 0.50671 0.05030 O.46865 0.11252 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0006 0.0001 0.0001 0.4360 0.0001 0.1007 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
PHVSAGG 0.54205 0.30211 0.20175 0.28992 0.22857 0.37593 0.38325 O. 13185 0.48597 0.13002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0016 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0404 0.0001 0.0576 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
PASSIVAG 0.27761 0.29909 0.58254 0.39877 O.67246 O.69974 0.26438 O.43618 O.72283 -0.08136 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0-0001 0.0001 0.2359 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
ASSERT O.10480 0.00722 -0.11865 0. 12981 -0.13932 -0.14379 0.36367 0.00076 0.36405 O.1039 0.9111 0.0654 0.0436 0.0303 0.0253 0.0001 0.0024 0.9906 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
SELFCONF -0.08668 -0.15096 -0.33756 -0.00950 -O.40721 -0.42476 O.10180 -O.35924 O.25681 O.1789 0.0188 0.0001 0.8831 0.0001 0.0001 0. 1142 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
INITASS 0.02387 -0.05180 -O.21427 0.03714 -O.21433 -0.20619 O.24567 -O.10536 0.36507 0.7118 0.4225 0.0008 0.5653 0.0008 0.0013 0.0001 0.0234 O-1020 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214 SEX=1
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
ASSAULT INOIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPIC VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST SEXROLE
DEFENASS 0.33492 -0.40328 -0.13412 0.32662 0.0573 0.4406 0-0027 0.0185 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0371 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
FRAW O.32027 -O.29647 -0.07728 O.32135 0.0917 0.6446 0.0285 O.1623 0.0002 0.0017 0.0001 0.0001 0.2310 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
PRAISE 0.06705 -0.30264 -0.29186 O.17424 0.0790 O.1267 0.0001 0.2108 0.0001 0.0001 0.2989 0.0001 0.0001 0.0107 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
REQESTHE O.17086 -O.29999 -O.13523 O. 17855 0.8641 0.1433 0.0906 0.3089 0.0010 0.0019 0.0077 0.0001 0.0355 0.0088 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
REFUSDEM O. 1609S -O.33392 -0.2211S 0.22535 0.2198 0.4719 0.0058 0.6084 0.0001 0.0001 0.0122 0.0001 0.0005 0.0009 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
CONFLAVD -0.49588 0.27968 -0.04937 -0.28745 0.0001 0.4655 0.4265 O. 1569 0.0049 0.0066 0.0001 0.0001 0.4445 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
OEPENDCY -O.04652 O.49267 0.41571 -O.18885 0.5540 0.0001 0.0001 0.0432 0.0001 0.0001 0.4713 0.0001 0.0001 0.0056 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
SHY -0.10920 0.22981 0.22096 -0.25855 0.2545 0.9020 0.0001 0.3094 0.0001 0.0001 0.0901 0.0003 0.0005 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
ASSAULT 0.45595 0. 12433 0.55933 O.09742 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0126 0.0006 0.0001 0.0534 0.0001 0.1556 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
INOIRHOS 0.29725 0.34026 0.23089 0.58170 -O.02559 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0003 0.0013 0.0002 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.7097 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
IRRITBLE 0.24311 0.43018 0.32768 0.39002 0.75276 -0.10352 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.1312 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
NEGATIVE 0.31234 0.16063 0.52560 0.07339 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0123 0.0001 0.2852 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
RESENT O. 19743 O.45998 O.69313 -0.01940 0.0126 0.0013 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0020 0.0001 0.0001 0.7778 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214 SAS
SEX=1
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
ASSAULT INOIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST SEXROLE
SUSPICIN 0.21955 0.23491 0.43266 0.32102 0.59747 1 OOOOO 0.21086 0.42928 0.69171 O.01453 0.0006 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0010 0.0001 6.0001 0.8326 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
VERBLHOS 0.45595 0.34026 0.32768 0.31234 0. 19743 0.21086 1.OOOOO O.10967 O.61258 0.21494 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0020 0.0010 0.0000 0.0887 0.0001 0.0016 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
GUILT 0. 12433 0.23089 0.39002 0.16063 0.45998 0.42928 0.10967 1.OOOOO 0.58613 -O.08854 0.0534 0.0003 0.0001 0.0123 0.0001 0.0001 0.0887 OOOOO 0.0001 0.1970 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
TOTLHOST 0.55933 0.58170 0.75276 O.52560 O.69313 O.69171 0.61258 O.58613 1 OOOOO 0.03359 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.6251 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214
SEXROLE 0.09742 -0.02559 -O.10352 O.07339 -0.01940 0.01453 0.21494 -0.08854 0.03359 1.00000 0.1556 0.7097 O.1312 0.2852 0.7778 0.8326 0.0016 0.1970 0.6251 OOOOO 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 214 N> O W SAS
SEX=2: MEN
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
ID GRADE RACE AGE MARITAL DADED MOMED HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS STAST
ID 1.00000 0.07471 0.04016 0.07278 -0.12501 -0.04009 -0.08127 O.09936 0.06093 0.05489 -0.06307 -0.01034 0.05565 O.OOOO 0.2823 0.5599 0.2903 0.0686 0.5607 0.2375 0.1484 0.3762 0.4255 0.3597 0.8807 0.4191 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
GRADE 0.07471 1.00000 O.09593 0.53518 0.20673 -O.08614 -0.07317 -0.00623 -0.04119 0.02511 0.01732 0.01612 -O.05520 0.2823 0.0000 0.1671 0.0001 0.0027 0.2149 0.2924 0.9286 0.5538 0.7182 0.8034 0.8168 0.4272 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209
RACE 0.04016 0.09593 1.00000 0.06650 0.12836 -0.02911 -0.01538 0.02623 -0.09647 0.07846 0.04527 0.12810 0.08227 0.5599 O. 1671 O.OOOO 0.3341 0.0615 0.6727 0.8234 0.7035 O.1606 0.2542 0.5111 0.0620 0.2319 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
AGE 0.07278 0.53518 0.06650 1.00000 -0.08176 -0-06618 -0.08137 O.08483 -0.03262 0. 16568 0.05653 -0.02303 -0.05415 0.2903 0.0001 0.3341 0.0000 0.2348 0.3364 0.2370 0.2176 0.6360 0.0155 0.4118 0.7383 0.4317 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
MARITAL -O.12501 O.20673 0.12836 -O.08176 1 OOOOO 0.01803 0.08141 0.01561 0.02744 -O.08353 0.05363 0.04392 O.07794 0.0686 0.0027 0.0615 0.2348 0.0000 0.7936 0.2368 0.8209 0.6904 0.2247 0.4362 0.5238 0.2574 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
DADED -0.04009 -0.08614 -0.02911 -0.06618 0.01803 1.00000 0.44038 O.06030 -0.25773 -0.00755 -0.01936 0.07815 0.01959 0.5607 0.2149 0.6727 0.3364 0.7936 0.0000 0.0001 0.3812 0.0001 0.9128 0.7788 0-2S62 0.7762 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
HOMED -0.08127 -0.07317 -0.01538 -0.08137 0.08141 0.44038 1 OOOOO 0.02289 -0.13100 0.04154 0.11081 O.02206 0.02488 0.2375 0.2924 0.8234 0.2370 0.2368 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.7398 0.0563 O.S465 O.1068 0.7489 0.7181 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
HOME 0.09936 -O.00623 0.02623 0.08483 0.01561 O.06030 0.02289 1.00000 -0.00388 0.05895 0.00068 -0.00964 0.01730 0. 1484 0.9286 0.7035 0.2176 0.8209 0.3812 0.7398 O.OOOO 0.9552 0.3920 0.9922 0.8888 0.8018 213 209 213 213. 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
PLACE 0.06093 -0.04119 -0.09647 -0.03262 0.02744 -0.25773 -0.13100 -0.00388 1.00000 0.01915 -0.07466 -O.09381 -0.01273 0.3762 0.5538 0.1606 0.6360 0.6904 0.0001 0.0563 0.9552 O.OOOO 0.7811 0.2781 0.1725 0.8534 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
RSA 0.05489 0.02511 0.07846 O. 16568 -0.08353 -0.00755 0.04154 0.05895 0.01915 1.00000 0.32876 -0.06914 -0.04703 0.4255 0.7182 0.2542 0.0155 0.2247 0.9128 0.5465 0.3920 0.7811 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.3152 0.4948 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
RSB -O.06307 O.01732 O.04527 0.05653 O.05363 -0.01936 0.11081 O.00068 -0.07466 0.32876 1.00000 0.00384 0.13159 0.3597 0.8034 0.5111 0.4118 0.4362 0.7788 O.1068 0.9922 O.2781 o.ooot O.OOOO 0.9556 0.0552 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
STASS -0.01034 O.01612 O. 12810 -0.02303 0.04392 O.07815 0.02206 -O.00964 -0.09381 -O.06914 0.00384 1.OOOOO 0.43708 0.8807 0.8168 O.0620 0.7383 0.5238 0.2562 0.7489 0.8888 O.1725 0.3152 0.9556 O.OOOO 0.0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 SAS
SEX=2
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0= O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
ID GRADE RACE AGE MARITAL DADED MOMED HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS STAST
STAST 0.05565 -O.05520 0.08227 -0.05415 0.07794 0.01959 O.02488 0.01730 • O.13159 O.43708 1 OOOOO 0.4191 0.4272 0.2319 0.4317 0.2574 0.7762 0.7181 0.8018 0.0552 0.0001 0.0000 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
AXOUT 0.05438 -0.05759 0.05501 0.01953 O.04659 O.08706 0.04239 -0.00323 0.20745 0.23613 0.62634 0.4298 0.4075 0.4244 0.7769 0.4988 0.2057 0.5383 0.9627 0.0023 0.0005 0.0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
AXIN -0.07769 -0.12202 0.05288 -0.10245 O.02183 -0.01604 0.03103 0.03058 -0.05781 0.30144 0.37791 0.2589 0.0784 0.4426 0.1362 0.7515 0.8160 0.6525 0.6572 0.4012 O.OOOl 0.0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
AXCON 0.01658 0.09253 -O.03747 0.08210 -0.08899 -0.05720 -0.18937 -O.52780 0.8099 0.1827 0.5866 0.2328 0.195* 0.3781 0.8462 0.8052 0.4062 0.0056 0.0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
AXEX -0.02376 -0.13252 O.06821 -0.08490 0.07703 0.08841 0.34384 0.72194 0.7302 0.0558 0.3218 0.2172 0.2630 0.3795 0.5650 0.9489 O. 1987 O.OOOl 0.0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
BDI -0.00316 -0.08780 O.1S820 -0.11862 -0.00183 -O.14524 0.26283 O.36562 0.9634 0.2062 . 0.0209 0.0841 0.9789 0.9458 0.2693 0.2744 0.376S 0.0077 0.0341 0.0001 0.0001 N9 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 S DENIAL 0.00983 -0.00909 0.16385 -O.09706 -O.09878 -O.09358 -0.07507 -0.35078 0.8866 0.8961 0.0167 0.1581 0.1508 0.6056 0.6601 0.3262 0.1736 0.2754 0.0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
INFREO -0.10578 -0.08267 0.04664 -0.08559 -0.00983 O.06689 O.28973 O.39935 O.1238 0.2340 0.4984 0.2135 0.8866 0.4181 0.4226 0.2419 0.2009 0.0001 0.3312 O.OOOl 0.0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
IMPRESS 0.03750 O.14406 0.00949 0.03772 -0.01204 -O.08871 -0.22280 -O.50555 0.5862 0.0374 0.8905 0.5841 0.8613 0.6883 0.7451 0.3019 0.1972 0.0011 0.0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
AGGRESS -0.04961 -0.05739 -0.02879 0.00322 0.12665 0.18138 0.19721 0.49821 0.4713 0.4091 0.6761 0.9627 0.0650 0.1110 0.5234 0.1267 0.0080 0.0039 0.0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
HOSTILST -0.04433 -0.05185 0.00166 0.02913 O.10084 0.08542 -O.11338 -O.18531 0.22215 O. 18085 O.48627 0.5199 0.4560 0.9808 0.6725 O.1424 0.0678 0.4253 0.2144 0.0989 0.0067 0.0011 0.0082 0.0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
ANGEREX 0.06417 -0.09037 0.08133 0.02612 0.04015 -O.04478 -0.04878 0.27780 O.31457 0.67781 0.3514 0.1932 0.2372 0.7046 0.5601 0.3056 0.4842 0.4359 0.5157 0.4789 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
DISREGD -O.14689 0.08488 0. 14253 -0.00249 0.14044 -O.14817 -0.27109 O.18210 O.20800 O.39769 0.0321 0.2217 0.0377 0.9711 0.0406 0.5265 0.4665 0.8712 0.0306 0.0001 0.0077 0.0023 O.OOOl 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 SAS
=2
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB |R| UNDER H0-.RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
ID GRADE RACE AGE MARITAL DADED MOMED HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS STAST
VERBALAG -0.00788 -O.04544 0.02910 -0.02901 0.07643 0.08731 0.03225 -O.02451 -O.15221 -O.22832 0.27435 0.21990 O.50532 0.9090 0.5135 0.6728 0.6738 0.2668 0.2044 0.6398 0.7221 0.0263 0.0008 0.0001 0.0012 0-0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
PHYSAGG -0.00836 -0.04993 0.07116 0.01540 0.03857 O.05430 O.00357 0.05834 -0.03956 -O.15422 O.20741 0.29632 0.46355 0.9265 0.4728 0.3012 0.8232 0.5756 0.4305 0.9587 0.3969 0.5658 0.0244 0.0023 0.0001 0.0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
PASSIVAG 0.03774 -0.10300 O. 19393 -0.01231 O.05272 0.07152 0.08115 0.02291 0.00800 -0.23642 -O.06730 0.36028 0.51206 0.5838 O.1378 0.0045 0.8583 0.4440 0.2988 0.2383 0.7396 0.9076 0.0005 0.3283 0.0001 0.0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
ASSERT -0.02674 0.05161 -0.03926 O.10829 0.02969 O.00653 -0.00252 -0.05769 -O.16152 0.14075 0.53245 -0.04146 O.08998 0.6980 0.4580 0.5688 0. 1151 0.6665 0.9245 0.9708 0.4022 0.0183 0.0401 0.0001 0.5473 O.1908 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
SELFCONF 0.10502 0.08497 -0.10290 0.05807 -0.01393 -0.01612 -0.01529 -O.04259 -O.13364 0.22408 O.35264 -0.23245 -O.20921 O.1265 0.2212 0.1344 0.3991 0.8398 0.8151 0.8245 0.5365 0.0514 0.0010 0.0001 0.0006 0.0021 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
INITASS -0.06350 0.06500 -0.05063 0.09621 0.05049 -0.00638 -0.02146 -O.06989 -O.11845 O.17826 0.54946 -O.16811 -O.10494 0.3564 0.3497 0.4624 0.1618 0.4635 0.9262 0.7555 0.3100 0.0846 0.0091 0.0001 0.0140 0.1268 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
DEFENASS -O.00184 0.15923 -0.07694 0.15407 -0.07598 0.02515 0.04689 0.02698 -0.12839 0.16823 0.46259 -0.16410 0.00266 0.9787 0.0213 0.2636 0.0245 0.2696 0.7152 0.4961 0.6954 0.0614 0.0140 0.0001 0.0165 0.9692 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
FRANK -O.03951 0.06378 -0.07585 -0.00566 0.04551 O.05345 O.10051 0.06828 -0.07401 0.09567 0.39578 -0.03672 0.08373 0.5663 0.3589 0.2704 0.9346 0.5088 0.4377 0.1438 0.3213 0.2822 0.1641 0.0001 0.5941 0.2236 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
PRAISE 0.05565 ' O.10511 -0.07718 O.05644 -0.01585 0.03264 -0.03772 -0.02048 -0.13493 0.28774 0.26217 -O.14548 -O.19899 0.4191 0.1299 0.2621 0.4125 0.8181 0.6357 0.5841 0.7663 0.0492 0.0001 0.0001 0.0338 0.0035 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
REQESTHE 0. 13719 0.05915 -0.17472 0.08639 -0.01682 0.07052 0.04080 0.01203 -0.04448 0.18670 0.27738 -0.16200 -0.07898 0.0455 0.3949 0.0106 0.2092 0.8072 0.3056 0.5537 0.8615 0.5185 0.0063 0.0001 0.0180 0.2511 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
REFUSDEM -0.05209 0.09596 -0.11444 0.09973 -0.14737 -0.06802 -0.05101 0.05471 -O.10787 O.11703 O.24776 -O.13944 -0.09178 0.4495 0.1669 0.0958 0.1469 0.0316 0.3231 0.4590 0.4270 0.1165 0.0884 0.0003 0.0420 0.1821 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
CONFLAVD 0.06514 -0.03326 0.06809 -0.05438 -0.04367 -0.03329 -0.04360 -0.00520 O.11420 -0.01899 -O.47427 O.01222 -O.20887 0.3441 0.6326 0.3227 0.4298 0.5262 0.6290 0.5268 0.9398 0.0964 0.7829 0.0001 0.8592 0.0022 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
DEPENDCY 0.09522 -0.11033 0.13443 0.05769 0.03311 0.05472 0.021S0 0.13475 0.06014 O.13070 -O.14993 O.18180 O.26464 O.16G2 0. 1118 0.0501 O.4022 0.6308 0.4269 0.7551 0.0495 0.3825 0.0569 0.0287 0.0078 0.0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 SAS
SEX=2
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UWER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
10 GRADE RACE AGE MARITAL DADEO MOMEO HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS STAST
SHY -0.01353 -0.04953 0.08818 -0.09440 0.00992 0.06527 0.02216 O.05530 -0.02050 -0.30370 -0.43978 0.27569 0.20325 0.8444 0.4764 O.1999 0.1699 0.8855 0.3432 0.7478 0.4220 0.7661 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0029 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
ASSAULT -0.03247 -0.01180 0.06635 0.03868 0.05970 -0.02057 0.01816 0.06704 -O.02332 -O.11191 0.19354 O.25569 0.51692 0.637S 0.8654 0.3352 0.5745 0.3860 0.7654 0.7921 0.3302 0.7350 0.1034 0.0046 0.0002 0.0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 - 213 213
INOIRHOS O.05156 -O.10533 0.00179 0.02903 -O.00450 O.04007 -0.11202 0.04842 -0.02356 0.03587 0.07548 0.23636 0.50612 0.4541 0.1291 0.9793 0.6736 0.9480 0.5609 O.1030 0.4821 0.7325 0.6026 0.2728 0.0005 0.0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
IRRITBLE O.06257 -0.11672 0.06741 0.02647 0.05878 0.02678 -0.03227 0.08581 -0.05409 -0.13422 0.00093 O.35113 O.68365 0.3635 0.0924 0.3275 0.7009 0.3933 0.6976 0.6396 0.2123 0.4323 0.0S04 0.9892 0.0001 0.0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
NEGATIVE O.01738 -O.04021 0.22408 0.02046 O.02573 0.00461 -0.06160 0.10685 -0.14154 -O.17832 0.04185 O.25986 0.36197 0.8010 0.5632 0.0010 0.7665 0.7088 0.9466 0.3710 0.1200 0.0390 0.0091 0.5436 0.0001 0.0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
RESENT -0.05711 -0.12502 0.00377 -0.01947 -0.02909 0.03192 0.04915 0.07359 -O.00556 -0.27647 -0.13330 0.34012 0.52070 0.4069 0.0713 0.9S64 0.7776 0.6729 0.6432 0.4755 0.2850 0.9358 0.0001 0.0521 0.0001 0.0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
SUSPICIN -0.04927 -0.09390 0.12182 -0.01624 O.00545 0.02768 0.08740 0.02350 -O.05406 -O.18036 0.01835 0.44266 0.52590 0.4744 0.1763 0.0761 0.8137 0.9370 0.6879 0.2039 0.7331 0.4325 0.0083 0.7901 0.0001 0.0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
VERBLHOS 0.05207 0.00583 0.03320 O.03212 0.00708 O.08074 0.059S0 O 11958 -O.10026 -0.05731 0.41214 O.10127 0.42169 0.4497 0.9333 0.6299 0.6411 0.9182 0.2407 0.3875 0.0816 0.1448 0.4053 0.0001 0.1407 0.0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
GUILT 0.00085 -0.24276 0.11956 -O.04462 0.01123 -0.01529 -0.08722 -0.03301 0.07840 0.06367 -O.16088 0.20654 0.32782 0.9901 0.0004 0.0817 0.5172 0.8706 0.8244 0.2049 0.6318 0.2546 0.3551 0.0188 0.0025 0.0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
TOTLHOST 0.01017 -0.13303 0.10730 0.01420 0.02723 0.03544 -0.00641 0.09250 -0.05658 -O.1S100 0.10632 0.40421 0.73437 0.8827 0.0548 0.1184 0.8368 0.6927 0.6070 0.9259 0.1786 0.4113 0.0276 0.1219 0.0001 0.0001 213 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
SEXROLE O.04022 O.10784 O. 14641 0.09468 -0.00086 -0.01531 0.03328 -0.01809 0. 11063 0.28093 0. 18281 -O.10203 -0.04695 0.5786 O.1396 0.0422 0.1903 0.9905 0.8326 0.6459 0.8028 O.1256 0.0001 0.0109 O. 1580 0.5167 193 189 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193
AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREO IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX OISREGD VERBALAG
ID O.05438 -0.07769 0.01658 -0.02376 -0.00316 0.00983 -0.10578 0.03750 -0.04961 -0.04433 0.06417 -0.14689 -0.00788 0.4298 0.2589 0.8099 0.7302 0.9634 0.8866 O.1238 0.5862 0.4713 0.5199 0.3514 0.0321 0.9090 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 SAS
SEX=2
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO:RHO =0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREQ IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGD VERBALAG
GRADE -0.05759 -0.12202 0.09253 -0.13252 -0.08780 -O.00909 -0.08267 0.14406 -O.05739 -O.05185 -0.09037 O.08488 -0.04544 0.4075 0.0784 O.1827 0.0558 0.2062 0.8961 0.2340 0.0374 0.4091 0.4560 O.1932 0.2217 0.5135 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209
RACE 0.05S01 0.05288 -0.03747 0.06821 O.15820 0.16385 0.04664 0.00949 -0.02879 0.00166 O.08133 O. 14253 0.02910 0.4244 0.4426 0.5866 0.3218 0.0209 0.0167 0.4984 0.8905 0.6761 0.9808 0.2372 0.0377 0.6728 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
AGE 0.01953 -0.10245 0.08210 -0.08490 -0.11862 -0.09706 -0.08559 0.03772 0.00322 O.02913 0.02612 -0.00249 -O.02901 " 0.7769 0.1362 0.2328 0.2172 0.0841 0.1581 0.2135 0.5841 0.9627 0.6725 0.7046 0.9711 0.6738 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
MARITAL 0.04659 0.02183 -O.08899 0.07703 -0.00183 -0.09878 -0.00983 -0.01204 0.12665 O.10084 0.04015 O. 14044 0.07643 0.4988 0.7515 0.1958 0.2630 0.9789 0.1508 0.8866 0.8613 0.0650 0.1424 0.5601 0.0406 0.2668 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
OADEO 0.08706 -0.01604 -0.06070 0.06052 0.00469 -0.03558 0.05577 -0.02765 0.10952 O.12538 0.07053 0.04364 0.08731 0.2057 0.8160 0.3781 0.3795 0.9458 0.6056 0.4181 0.6883 0.1110 0.0678 0.3056 0.5265 0.2044 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 N) O MOMED 0.04239 0.03103 -0.01336 0.03964 -0.07603 -0.03030 0.05523 -0.02240 O.04396 0.05491 -0.04819 0.05015 0.03225 00 0.5383 0.6525 0.8462 0.5650 0.2693 0.6601 0.4226 0.7451 0.5234 0.4253 0.4842 0.4665 0.6398 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
HOME -0.00323 0.03058 0.01700 0.00442 -0.07523 -0.06759 -0.08053 -0.07107 0.10497 0.08542 0.05366 -0.01118 -0.02451 0.9627 0.6572 0.8052 0.9489 0.2744 0.3262 0.2419 0.3019 0.1267 0.2144 0.4359 0.8712 0.7221 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
PLACE 0.01260 -0.02632 0.00973 -O.01265 -0.06089 -0.03844 -0.08797 -O.02578 -0.12593 -O.11338 -0.04478 -0.14817 -0.15221 0.8549 0.7025 0.8877 0.8544 0.3765 0.5769 0.2009 0.7083 0.0666 0.0989 0.5157 0.0306 0.0263 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
RSA -O.13981 -0.17955 0.20680 -O.25429 -0.18210 0.01088 -O.28782 O.16756 -0.30625 -0.18531 -0.04878 -0.27109 -0.22832 0.0415 0.0086 0.0024 •0.0002 0.0077 0.8745 0.0001 0.0143 0.0001 0.0067 0.4789 0.0001 0.0008 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
RSB 0.20745 -0.05781 -0.05720 O.08841 -O.14524 -O.09358 0.06689 -0.08871 0.18138 0.22215 0.27780 0.18210 0.27435 0.0023 0.4012 0.4062 0.1987 0.0341 0.1736 0.3312 0.1972 0.0080 0.0011 0.0001 0.0077 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
STASS O.23613 0.30144 -O.18937 0.34384 O.26283 -0.07507 O.28973 -0.22280 0. 19721 0.18085 0.31457 0.20800 0.21990 0.0005 0.0001 0.0056 0.0001 0.0001 0.2754 0.0001 0.0011 0.0039 0.0082 0.0001 0.0023 0.0012 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
STAST O.62634 O.37791 -0.52780 0.72194 O.36562 -0.35078 0.39935 -0.50555 0.49821 0.48627 0.67781 O.39769 0.50532 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
AXOUT 1.OOOOO 0. 14553 -0.56005 0.78172 0.24022 -0.33363 0.43599 -0.44199 0.58182 0.57617 0.72555 0.43000 0.64793 O.OOOO 0.0338 0.0001 0.0001 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 5A5 SEX=2 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUWER OF OBSERVATIONS
AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BOI DENIAL INFREQ IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTXLST ANGEREX OISREGD VERBALAQ
AXIN O.14553 1.OOOOO -0.01857 0.55307 O.38252 -0.13800 0.20042 -O.32228 O.24657 O.18446 O.16387 0.22114 O.14130 0.0338 0.0000 0.7876 0.0001 0.0001 0.0442 0.0033 0.0001 0.0003 0.0069 0.0167 0.0012 0.0394 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
AXCON -0.56005 -O.01857 1 OOOOO -O.77126 -O.19822 0.31530 -0.28106 0.43533 0.41904 -0.43798 -0.65563 -0.27844 -0.51120 0.0001 0.7876 0.0000 0.0001 0.0037 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
AXEX 0.78172 0.55307 -0.77126 1 OOOOO 0.38938 -0.37209 0.42652 -0.56963 0.58240 0.56011 0.72747 0.43265 0.60783 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
BOI O.24022 O.38252 -0.19822 0.38938 1.00000 0.05332 0.33957 -0.26308 0.20798 0.11124 O.31292 0.19997 0.18013 0.0004 0.0001 0.0037 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.4389 0.0001 0.0001 0.0023 0.1054 0.0001 0.0034 0.0084 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
DENIAL -0.33363 -0.13800 0.31530 -0.37209 0.05332 1.00000 -0.02523 0.41772 -0.37656 -0.35992 -O.31528 -0.12304 -0.30275 0.0001 0.0442 O.OOOl 0.0001 0.4389 O.OOOO 0.7143 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0732 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
INFREQ 0.43599 0.20042 -0.28106 0.42652 0.33957 -0.02523 1.00000 0.30248 0.57310 0.46266 O.39774 0.53067 O.57585 O.OOOl 0.0033 O.OOOl 0.0001 0.0001 0.7143 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 ro 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 O VO IMPRESS -0.44199 -0.32228 0.43533 -0.56963 -0.26308 0.41772 -0.30248 1.00000 -0.48821 -0.49321 -O.54240 -0.27411 -O.56834 O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
AGGRESS 0.58182 0.24657 -0.41904 0.58240 0.20798 -0.37656 0.S7310 -O.48821 1.OOOOO 0.86284 0.62014 O.62296 0.73594 0-0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0023 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
HOSTILST 0.57617 0.18446 -0.43798 0.56011 0.11124 -0.35992 0.46266 -O.49321 O.86284 1 OOOOO 0.58900 0.72571 O.72767 0.0001 0.0069 0.0001 0.0001 0.1054 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
ANGEREX 0.72555 0. 16387 -0.65563 O.72747 0.31292 -O.31528 0.39774 -0.54240 0.62014 0.58900 1.00000 0.40424 0.65927 0.0001 0.0167 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
OISREGD 0.43000 0.22114 -0.27844 0.43265 O.19997 -O.12304 O.53067 -0.27411 0.62296 0.72571 0.40424 1.00000 0.55540 0.0001 0.0012 0.0001 0.0001 0.0034 0.0732 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
VERBALAG 0.64793 0. 14130 -0.51120 0.60783 0.18013 -0.30275 0.57585 -0.56834 0.73594 O.72767 0.65927 0.55540 1.00000 0.0001 0.0394 0.0001 0.0001 0.0084 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
PHYSAGG O.53983 O. 16792 -O.44267 0.53955 0.21071 -0.17992 0.47301 -0.40087 0.61522 0.64185 0.67448 0.54847 0.49748 0.0001 0.0141 0.0001 0.0001 0.0020 0.0085 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 SAS
SEX=2
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO:RH0=O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREQ IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX OISREGD VERBALAG
PASSIVAG 0.47032 0.33815 -0.41155 0.57644 0.38522 -0.20195 0.53396 -0.52057 0.52687 0.49653 -O.54494 0.51510 O.53364 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0031 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
ASSERT 0.26633 -0.17100 -0.12527 0.09424 -0.24229 -0.19902 O.02036 -0.14254 0.21216 O.32356 O.25696 O.20637 0.35907 0.0001 0.0124 0.0680 0.1706 0.0004 0.0035 0.7677 0.0377 0.0018 0.0001 0.0001 0.0025 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
SELFCGNF -0.01134 -0.32315 0.03259 -0.17803 -0.41144 -0.09208 -O.23207 O. 12223 -0.09387 0.02317 -O.04539 -O.04896 -O.00333 0.8693 0.0001 0.6362 0.0092 0.0001 O.1806 0.0006 0.0751 0.1723 0.7368 0.5099 0.4772 0.9615 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
INITASS 0.05590 -0.23326 0.04037 -0.11087 -0.30861 -0.09138 -O.15041 0.07164 -0.00663 0.06965 0.05663 0.00493 O.12186 0.4170 0.0006 0.5579 0.1066 0.0001 0.1840 0.0282 0.2980 0.9234 0.3116 0.4109 0.9430 0.0760 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
DEFENASS O.13568 -0.22581 -O.03967 -0.03177 -0.27559 -O.12752 -O.13077 0.02307 0.01627 O.12249 0.07695 O.08375 0.13344 0.0480 0.0009 0.5648 0.6447 0.0001 0.0632 0.0567 0.7378 0.8134 0.0744 0.2635 0.2235 0.0518 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 toh-» FRANK. 0.33830 -0.27728 -0.27052 O.14976 -0.12759 -O.09723 0.00550 -0.16377 0. 11882 0.19879 0.26154 0.17428 0.36004 O 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0289 0.0631 0.1574 0.9364 0.0167 0.0836 0.0036 0.0001 0.0108 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
PRAISE -0.04002 -O.28984 0.07860 -O.19822 -0.35653 -0.05204 -O.23992 0.25425 -O.12405 0.00196 -0.06591 -0.03846 -0.06929 0.5614 0.0001 0.2534 0.0037 0.0001 O.4499 0.0004 0.0002 0.0708 0.9773 0.3384 0.5767 0.3142 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
REQESTHE Ô.08971 -O.27854 -0.07357 -O.05832 -0.29708 -0.20073 -O.19486 -0.05183 -0.06129 0.01694 -0.00329 -0.12867 0.07879 0.1922 0.0001 0.2851 0.3971 0.0001 0.0033 0.0043 0-4518 0.3734 0.8059 0.9619 0.0609 0.2523 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
REFUSDEM 0.01196 -0.26482 0.02813 -0.13784 -0.27706 -0.09923 -0.19276 0.01225 0.00902 0.05938 0.00617 -0.03469 0.02428 0.8622 0.0001 0.6832 0.0445 0.0001 0.1489 0.0048 0.8589 0.8959 0.3885 0.9286 0.6147 0.7246 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
CONFLAVD -0.46820 O. 17083 0.33350 -O.28840 0.10566 0. 19696 -0.07694 0.27629 -0.32614 -0.36650 -0.45870 -0.27143 -0.53814 0.0001 0.0125 0.0001 0.0001 O.1242 0.0039 0.2636 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 4 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
DEPENDCY O. 17813 O.11105 -O.29831 0.28561 0.24329 -0.18887 0.19422 -0.26602 0.10270 0.14320 0.18129 0.07530 O.15942 0.0092 0.1061 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 0.0057 0.0044 0.0001 0.1352 0.0368 0.0080 0.2739 0.0199 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
SHY 0.00750 0.41764 -0.04782 0.23014 0.32801 0.09625 0.27466 -O.20004 O.16947 0.06439 0.06645 O. 11692 0.08193 0.9133 0.0001 0.4875 0.0007 0.0001 O. 1616 0.0001 0.0034 0.0133 0.3497 0.3344 0.0887 0.2338 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
ASSAULT O.53745 O.14080 -0.46818 0.53898 0.15254 -0.22029 0.38032 -O.35635 O.52892 0.60971 O.61263 0.45435 0.48041 0.0001 0.0401 0.0001 0.0001 0.0260 0.0012 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 SAS
SEX=2
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0;RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREO IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGO VERBALAG imiRHOS 0.44348 O.32046 -0.39607 0.54856 0.22254 -0.31100 0.24304 -0.50734 0.37666 0.38647 O.58567 0.17683 0.41061 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0011 0.0001 0.0003 O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.0097 O.OOOl 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
IRRITBLE O.52831 O.45808 -0.45900 0.68354 O.41085 -O.39393 O.35697 -O.58959 O.52932 0.50069 0.61558 0.36880 O.52304 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl 213 213 213 213 213 213 « 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
NEGATIVE 0.26470 0.31817 -0.22075 0.38040 0.23062 -0.12172 0.42102 -O.32987 O.39971 O.34230 0.33556 0.40930 O.38632 0.0001 0.0001 0.0012 0.0001 0.0007 0.0763 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
RESENT 0.40596 O.39469 -O.37606 O.55824 0.34827 -O.25143 0.49155 -0.45B30 O.44977 O.39309 0.42433 0.37896 O.44106 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
SUSPICIN 0.40049 0.31749 -O.37308 O.51712 O. 34849 -0.24405 O.42898 -0.46623 0.47626 O.40486 O.49691 O.38105 0.50742 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 O.OOOl 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.0001 O.OOOl 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
VERBLHOS O.59667 -0.00411 -O.45358 0.48582 0.04450 -0.33100 0.31755 -0.41295 O.49050 0.54910 0.59749 0.40588 0.68692 0.0001 0.9524 0.0001 0.0001 0.5183 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
GUILT O.OB612 O.35677 -O.15205 O.28859 O.37446 -0.12973 O.15311 -0.23203 0.04500 -O.00877 O.16274 -O.02066 O.03746 0.2106 0.0001 0.0265 0.0001 0.0001 0.0587 0.0254 0.0006 0.5136 0.8988 0.0175 0.7643 0.5867 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
TOTLHOST 0.63681 0.41265 -0.56221 0.76130 0.39051 -0.38993 0.51690 -0.63418 0.62837 0.61560 0.73957 0.48268 0.66943 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
SEXROLE -0.04560 -0.02306 0.07386 -0.06938 -0.04979 O.11350 -O.13964 0.06216 -0.12831 -0.04709 O.01618 -O.02317 -O.08328 0.5289 0.7503 0.3073 0.3377 0.4917 0.1160 0.0528 0.3905 0.0753 0.5155 0.8233 0.7490 0.2495 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193
PHYSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS DEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REOESTHE REFUSDEM CONFLAVO DEPENOCY SHY
ID -0.00636 0.03774 -0.02674 O.10502 -0.063S0 -0.00184 -0.03951 0.05565 O.13719 -0.05209 0.06514 0.09522 -0.01353 0.9265 0.5838 0.6980 0.1265 0.3564 0.9787 0.5663 0.4191 0.0455 0.4495 0.3441 0.1662 0.8444 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
GRADE -0.04993 -0.10300 0.05161 0.08497 0.06500 O.15923 0.06378 O.10511 O.05915 O.09596 -0.03326 -O.11033 -0.04953 0.4728 0.1378 0.4580 0.2212 0.3497 0.0213 0.3589 0.1299 0.3949 0.1669 0.6326 0.1118 0.4764 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209
RACE 0.07116 O. 19393 -0.03926 -O.10290 -0.05063 -0.07694 -0.07585 -0.07718 -O.17472 -O.11444 0.06809 0. 13443 0.08818 0.3012 0.0045 0.5688 0.1344 0.4624 0.2636 0.2704 0.2621 0.0106 0.0958 0.3227 0.0501 O.1999 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 SAS SEX=2
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RHG=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
PHYSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS DEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REQESTHE REFUSDEM CONFLAVO DEPENOCY SHY
AGE 0.01540 -0.01231 O.10829 0.05807 0.09621 O.15407 -O.00566 0.05644 0.08639 0.09973 -0.05438 0.05769 -0.09440 0.8232 0.8583 0.1151 0.3991 0.1618 0.0245 0.9346 0.4125 0.2092 0.1469 0.4298 0.4022 O.1699 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
MARITAL 0.03857 0.05272 0.02969 -O.01393 0.05049 -0.07598 0.04551 -0.01585 -0.01682 -0.14737 -O.04367 0.03311 0.00992 0.5756 0.4440 0.6665 0.8398 0.463S 0.2696 0.5088 0.8181 0.8072 0.0316 O.S262 0.6308 0.8855 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
DADED 0.05430 0.07152 O.00653 -0.01612 -0.00638 0.02515 0.05345 0.03264 0.07052 -0.06802 -O.03329 O.05472 O.06527 0.4305 0.2988 0.9245 0.8151 0.9262 0.7152 0.4377 0.6357 0.3056 0.3231 0.6290 0.4269 0.3432 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
MOMED 0.00357 0.08115 -0.00252 -0.01529 -0.02146 0.04689 0.10051 -0.03772 0.04080 -0.05101 -0.04360 0.02150 O.02216 0.9587 0.2383 0.9708 0.8245 0.7555 0.4961 0.1438 0.5841 0.5537 0.4590 0.5268 0.7551 0.7478 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 • 213 213 213 213 213 213
HOME 0.05834 0.02291 -0.05769 -0.04259 -O.06989 0.02698 O.06828 -O.02048 0.01203 0.05471 -0.00520 O.13475 0.05530 0.3969 0.7396 0.4022 0.5365 0.3100 0.6954 0.3213 0.7663 0.8615 0.4270 0.9398 0.0495 0.4220 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
PLACE -0.03956 0.00800 -O.16152 -0.13364 -O.11845 -0.12839 -0.07401 -O.13493 -0.04448 -O.10787 O. 11420 0.06014 -0.02050 0.5658 0.9076 0.0183 0.0514 0.0846 0.0614 0.2822 0.0492 0.5185 0.1165 0.0964 0.3825 0.7661 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
RSA -0.15422 -0.23642 0.14075 0.22408 O.17826 0.16823 0.09567 0.28774 O.18670 0.11703 -0.01899 0.13070 -0.30370 0.0244 0.0005 0.0401 0.0010 0.0091 0.0140 0.1641 0.0001 0.0063 0.0884 0.7829 0.0569 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
RSB 0.20741 -0.06730 O.53245 0.35264 O.54946 O.46259 0.39578 0.26217 O.27738 O.24776 -O.47427 -O.14993 -O.43978 0.0023 0.3283 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0287 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
STASS 0.29632 O.36028 -0.04146 -O.23245 -O.16811 -O.16410 -0:03672 -O.14548 -O.16200 -0.13944 0.01222 0.18180 0.27569 0.0001 0.0001 0.5473 0.0006 0.0140 0.0165 0.5941 0.0338 0.0180 0.0420 0.8592 0.0078 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
STAST 0.46355 0.51206 0.08998 -0.20921 -O.10494 0.00266 0.08373 -0.19899 -0.07898 -0.09178 -O.20887 0.26464 0.20325 0.0001 0.0001 0.1908 0.0021 O.1268 0.9692 0.2236 0.0035 0.2511 O.1821 0.0022 0.0001 0.0029 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
AXOUT 0.53983 0.47032 O.26633 -0.01134 0.05590 O.13568 O.33830 -0.04002 0.08971 0.01196 -0.46820 0.17813 0.00750 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.8693 0.4170 0.0480 0.0001 0.5614 O. 1922 0.8622 0.0001 0.0092 0.9133 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
AXIN 0. 16792 O.33815 -O.17100 -O.32315 -0.23326 -O.22581 -0.27728 -0.28984 -0.27854 -0.26482 0.17083 0.11105 0.41764 0.0141 0.0001 0.0124 0.0001 0.0006 0.0009 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0125 O.1061 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
AXCON -0.44267 -0.41155 -O.12527 0.03259 0.04037 -0.03967 -0.27052 0.07860 -0.07357 0.02813 O.33350 -0.29831 -0.04782 0.0001 0.0001 0.0680 0.6362 0.5579 0.5648 0.0001 0.2534 0.2851 0.6832 0.0001 0.0001 0.4875 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 SAS
SEX=2
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
PHYSAGO PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS OEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REQESTHE REFUSDEM CONFLAVD DEPENOCY SHY
AXEX 0.53955 0.57644 O.09424 -O.17803 -0.11087 -0.03177 O.14976 -O.19822 -0.05832 -0.13784 -O.28840 0.28561 O.23014 0.0001 0.0001 O.1706 0.0092 O.1066 0.6447 0.0289 0.0037 0.3971 0.044S 0.0001 0.0001 0.0007 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
BOI 0.21071 O.38522 -0.24229 -0.41144 -O.30861 -0.27559 -O.12759 -O.35653 -0.29708 -0.27706 0.10566 0.24329 0.32801 0.0020 0.0001 0.0004 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.0631 O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.1242 0.0003 O.OOOl 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
DENIAL -O.17992 -0.20195 -0.19902 -0.09208 -O 09138 -0.12752 -0.09723 -0.05204 -0.20073 -0.09923 0.19696 -0.18887 O.09625 0.0085 0.0031 0.0035 0.1806 0.1840 0.0632 0.1574 0.4499 0.0033 O. 1489 0.0039 0.0057 O.1616 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
INFREO o;47301 0.53396 0.02036 -O.23207 -0.15041 -0.13077 0.00550 -0.23992 -0.19486 -0.19276 -0.07694 0.19422 0.27466 0.0001 O.OOOl 0.7677 o.oooe 0.0282 0.0567 0.9364 0.0004 0.0043 0.0048 0.2636 0.0044 O.OOOl 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
IMPRESS -0.40087 -0.52057 -0.14254 0.12223 0.07164 0.02307 -0.16377 0.25425 -0.05183 0.01225 O.27629 -0.26602 -0.20004 0.0001 O.OOOl 0.0377 0.0751 0.2980 0.7378 0.0167 0.0002 0.4518 0.8589 0.0001 0.0001 0.0034 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 _ 213 213 213 213
AGGRESS 0.61522 0.52687 0.21216 -0.09387 -0.00663 0.01627 0.11882 -0.12405 -0.06129 0.00902 -0.32614 0.10270 0. 16947 O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.0018 O. 1723 0.9234 0.8134 0.0836 0.0708 0.3734 0.8959 O.OOOl O.1352 0.0133 |S3 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 H» CO HOSTILST 0.64185 0.49653 0.32356 0.02317 O.06965 0. 12249 0. 19879 0.00196 0.01694 0.05938 -0.36650 0.14320 0.06439 O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.7368 0.3116 0.0744 0.0036 0.9773 0.8059 0.3885 O.OOOl 0.0368 0.3497 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
ANGEREX 0.67448 0.54494 0.25696 -O.04539 0.05663 0.07695 0.26154 -O.06591 -0.00329 O.00617 -O.45870 0. 18129 0.06645 O.OOOl 0.0001 0.0001 0.5099 0.4109 0.2635 0.0001 0.3384 0.9619 0.9286 0.0001 0.0080 0.3344 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
DISREGD 0.54847 0.51510 O.20637 -0.04896 0.00493 0.08375 O.17428 -0.03846 -0.12867 -O.03469 -0.27143 0.07530 0.11692 O.OOOl 0.0001 0.0025 0.4772 0.9430 0.2235 0.0108 0.5767 0.0609 0.6147 0.0001 0.2739 0.0887 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
VERBALAG O.49748 O.53364 O.35907 -0.00333 O. 12186 O. 13344 0.36004 -O.06929 0.07879 0.02428 -O.53814 0. 15942 0.08193 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.9615 0.0760 0.0518 0.0001 0.3142 0.2523 0.7246 O.OOOl 0.0199 0.2338 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
PHYSAGG 1.00000 O.53915 O. 17420 -O.09276 0.01342 0.02924 0.10858 -0.11972 -0.10997 -0.02978 -0.26538 0.06494 0.08612 0.0000 0.0001 0.0109 0.1774 0.8456 0.6714 0.1141 0.0813 0.1095 0.6656 O.OOOl 0.3456 0.2107 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
PASSIVAG O.53915 1.OOOOO -0.02406 -0.30995 -0.19884 -O.23450 -0.01991 -0.31688 -0.20127 -O.28971 -0.06709 0.39832 O.35246 0.0001 0.0000 0.7270 0.0001 0.0036 0.0006 0.7726 O.OOOl 0.0032 0.0001 0.3298 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
ASSERT 0. 17420 -0.02406 1.00000 0.57926 0.84387 0.63018 0.53836 0.51195 0.44354 0.39845 -0.63617 -0.13749 -0.60087 0.0109 0.7270 O.OOOO O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.0001 0.0450 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 SAS
SEX=2
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
PHYSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS DEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REQESTHE REFUSDEM CONFLAVD DEPENDCY SHY
SELFCONF -0.09276 -O.30995 O.57926 1.OOOOO O.54432 0.55488 0.43861 0.79830 0.70786 0.45172 -0.41493 -0.29551 -0.58256 0.1774 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
INITASS O.01342 -0.19884 0.84387 0.54432 1.00000 0.57809 0.46399 0.47009 0.45482 0.40090 -0.56140 -O.27872 -O.62953 0.8456 0.0036 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
DEFENASS 0.02924 -0.23450 0.63018 0.55488 0.57809 1.00000 0.47068 0.43478 0.47354 0.51670 -O.57494 -O.31883 -O.52591 0.6714 0.0006 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
FRANK 0.10858 -0.01991 0.53836 0.43861 0.46399 0.47068 1.00000 O.34991 0.42942 O.30298 -O.73895 -O.11843 -O.34131 O.1141 0.7726 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl 0.0847 O.OOOl 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
PRAISE -0.11972 -O.31688 0.51195 0.79830 0.47009 0.43478 O.34991 1.00000 O.42686 O.31627 -0.29021 -O.22981 -O.50213 0.0813 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0007 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 H'to REQESTHE -0.10997 -0.20127 0.44354 0.70786 0.45482 0.47354 0.42942 0.42686 1.00000 0.41981 -O.39468 -O.12196 -0.43987 O.1095 0.0032 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0757 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
REFUSDEM -0.02978 -0.28971 O.39845 O.45172 0.40090 0.51670 0.30298 0.31627 0.41981 1.00000 -0.40329 -0.41418 -0.33244 0.6656 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
CONFLAVD -O.26538 -0.06709 -O.63617 -O.41493 -0.56140 -0.57494 -O.73895 -0.29021 -0.39468 -O.40329 1.00000 0.25341 0.34511 0.0001 0.3298 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOO 0.0002 O.OOOl 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
DEPENDCY 0.06494 O.39832 -O.13749 -O.29551 -O.27872 -O.31883 -O.11843 -0.22981 -0.12196 -0.41418 0.25341 1.00000 0.10960 0.3456 0.0001 0.0450 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0847 0.0007 0.0757 0.0001 0.0002 O.OOOO O.1107 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
SHY 0.08612 O.35246 -O.60087 -0.58256 -O.62953 -O.52591 -0.34131 -0.50213 -0.43987 -0.33244 0.34511 0.10960 1.00000 0.2107 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.1107 O.OOOO 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
ASSAULT O.68742 0.43620 O.16928 -0.02103 0.01535 0.09639 0.19013 -0.08028 -0.05700 0.02313 -0.33806 0.05698 0.08753 O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.0134 0.7602 0.8238 O. 1610 0.0054 0.2434 0.4078 0.7372 O.OOOl 0.4080 O.2032 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
INDIRHOS O.43398 0.38856 0.05988 -0.10419 -0.09344 -0.05268 0.11036 -0.08507 -0.04509 -0.11136 -O.16067 0.26818 O.15623 0.0001 0.0001 0.3845 0. 1296 O.1743 0.4444 O.1083 0.2163 0.5128 0.1051 0.0190 O.OOOl 0.0226 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
IRRITBLE G.45993 0.62105 0.02967 -O.22245 -0.18109 -O.10504 0.01232 -0.21558 -0.11531 -0.17882 -O.13645 0.35241 O.28953 O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.6667 0.0011 0.0081 O.1265 0.8581 0.0016 0.0932 0.0089 0.0467 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 SAS
SEX=2
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
PHVSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS DEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REQESTHE REFUSDEM CONFLAVD DEPENDCY SHY
NEGATIVE O.32983 O.53735 0.02773 -0.14332 -O.14877 -0.07945 -0.02102 -O.14075 -0.17433 -O.12434 -0.10042 0.18382 O.26411 0.0001 0.0001 0.6874 0.0366 0.0300 0.2483 0.7603 0.0401 0.0108 0.0701 0.1441 0.0071 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
RESENT O.42033 0.64345 -0.10950 -0.37603 -0.28919 -0.27766 -0.07906 -0.35840 -0.25566 -0.22980 0.03464 0.40034 O.36909 0.0001 0.0001 0.1110 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.2506 0.0001 0.0002 0.0007 0.6151 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
SUSPICIN 0.41571 O.62671 -0.05S24 -O.35752 -O.23060 -O.18764 0.02219 -0.31961 -0.15611 -0.19270 -0.10059 0.31195 0.38623 0.0001 0.0001 0.4225 0.0001 0.0007 0.0060 0.7474 0.0001 0.0227 0.0048 O.1434 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
VERBLHOS 0.39944 O.34829 0.52348 0.25176 0.32023 0.41225 0.50484 0.16394 0.25523 0. 19579 -0.63704 0.02243 -0.17824 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0166 0.0002 0.0041 0.0001 0.7448 0.0091 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
GUILT 0.02019 O.27084 -0.26022 -0.42121 -0.30217 -0.39211 -0.27380 -0.33925 -0.28198 -0.34951 0.29586 0.47425 0.27424 0.7696 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
TOTLHOST 0.60782 0.71583 0.10124 -O.23757 -O.14289 -0.07928 0.11811 -0.24072 -0.13093 -0.16123 -0.24829 O.37549 O.28314 0.0001 0.0001 O.1408 0.0005 0.0372 0.2493 0.0855 0.0004 0.0564 0.0185 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213
SEXROLE 0.00188 -0.01275 0.08356 0.08187 0. 14160 0.04075 0.10131 0.11974 0.07316 -0.02081 -0.08978 O.07483 -0.15795 0.9793 0.8603 0.2480 0.2577 0.0495 0.5737 0.1609 0.0972 0.3120 0.7739 0.2144 0.3010 0.0282 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193
ASSAULT INDIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHDST SEXROLE
ID -0.03247 0.05156 0.06257 0.01738 -0.05711 -0.04927 0.0S207 0.00085 0.01017 0.04022 0.6375 0.4541 0.363S 0.8010 0.4069 0.4744 0.4497 0.9901 0.8827 O.S786 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
GRADE -0.01180 -O.10533 -O.11672 -O.04021 -O.12502 -0.09390 0.00583 -O.24276 -O.13303 O.10784 0.8654 0.1291 0.0924 0.5632 0.0713 0. 1763 X>.9333 0.0004 0.0548 0.1396 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 189
RACE 0.06635 O.00179 0.06741 0.22408 0.00377 O. 12182 0.03320 0.11956 O.10730 O. 14641 0.3352 0.9793 0.3275 0.0010 0.9564 0.0761 0.6299 0.0817 0.1184 0.0422 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
AGE 0.03868 O.02903 0.02647 0.02046 -0.01947 -0.01624 0.03212 -0.04462 O.01420 0.09468 0.5745 0.6736 0.7009 0.7665 0.7776 0.8137 0.6411 0.5172 0.8368 O.1903 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
MARITAL 0.05970 -0.00450 O.OS878 O.02573 -0.02909 0.00545 0.00708 O.01123 0.02723 0.00086 0.3860 0.9480 0.3933 0.7088 0.6729 0.9370 0.9182 0.8706 0.6927 0.9905 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193 SAS SEX=2
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROS > |R| UNDER HO:RH0=O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS ASSAULT INDIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST SEXROLE
DADED 0.02057 0.04007 0.02678 0.00461 0.03192 0.02768 0.08074 -0.01529 0.03544 -0.01531 0.7654 0.5609 0.6976 0.9466 0.6432 0.6879 0-2407 0.8244 0.6070 0.8326 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
HOMED 0.01816 -0.11202 -0.03227 -0.06160 O.04915 O.08740 0.05950 -0.08722 -0.00641 0.03328 0.7921 0.1030 0.6396 0.3710 0.4755 0.2039 0.3875 0.2049 0.92S9 0.6459 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
HOME 0.06704 0.04842 0.08581 0.10685 0.07359 0.02350 O.11958 -0.03301 0.09250 -0.01809 0.3302 0.4821 0.2123 0.1200 0.2850 0.7331 0.0816 0.6318 0.1786 0.8028 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
PLACE •O.02332 -0.02356 -0.05409 -O.14154 -0.00556 -0.05406 -0.10026 O.07840 -0.05658 0.11063 0.7350 0.7325 0.4323 0.0390 0.9358 0.4325 0. 1448 0.2546 0.4113 0.1256 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
RSA O. 11191 0.03587 -O.13422 -0.17832 -0.27647 -O.18036 -O.05731 0-06367 -0-15100 0.28093 0.1034 0.6026 0.0504 0.0091 O.OOOl 0.0083 0.4053 0.3551 0.0276 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193 N> M RSB O.19354 O.07548 0.00093 O.04185 -0.13330 0.01835 0.41214 -0-16088 0.10632 0.18281 0.0046 0-2728 0.9892 0.5436 0.0521 0.7901 O.OOOl 0.0188 O. 1219 0.0109 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
STASS 0.25569 O.23636 0.35113 0.25986 0.34012 0.44266 0-10127 0-20654 0.40421 0.0002 0.0005 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl O.1407 0.0025 O.OOOl 0.1580 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
STAST 0.51692 0.50612 0-68365 0.36197 0.52070 O.52590 0.42169 0.32782 0.73437 0.0001 0.0001 0-0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl 0.0001 O.OOOl 0.5167 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
AXOUT 0.53745 0.44348 O-52831 0.26470 0.40596 0.40049 0.59667 0.08612 0.63681 -0.04560 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.2106 0.0001 0.5289 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
AXIN O.14080 0.32046 O.45808 0.31817 O.39469 O.31749 -0.00411 O.35677 0.41265 0.0401 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl 0.0001 0.0001 0.9524 O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.7503 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
AXCON -O.46818 -0.39607 -0.45900 -0.22075 -0.37606 -0.37308 -0.45358 -0.15205 -0.56221 O.07386 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0012 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0265 0.0001 0.3073 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
AXEX 0.53898 0.54856 0.68354 0.38040 O.55824 0.51712 O.48582 0.28859 0.76130 0.06938 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.3377 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
BDI O.15254 O.22254 0.41085 0.23062 0.34827 O.34849 0.04450 O.37446 0.39051 -O.04979 0.0260 0.0011 0.0001 0.0007 0.0001 0.0001 0.5183 0.0001 0.0001 0.4917 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193 SEX=2
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
ASSAULT INDIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST SEXROLE
DENIAL -0.22029 -O.31100 -O.39393 -O.12172 -O.25143 0.24405 -0.33100 -0.12973 -0.38993 0.11350 0.0012 0.0001 0.0001 0.0763 0.0002 0.0003 0.0001 0.0587 0.0001 0.1160 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
INFREO O.38032 0.24304 0.35697 0.42102 0.49155 0.42898 0.31755 0.15311 0.51690 -O.13964 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.0254 0.0001 0.0528 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
IMPRESS -0.35635 -0.50734 -0.58959 -0.32987 -0.45830 -0.46623 -0.41295 -0.23203 -0.63418 0.06216 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.0006 O.OOOl 0.3905 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
AGGRESS O.52892 0.37666 0.52932 0.39971 O.44977 0.47626 O.49050 0.04500 0.62837 -O.12831 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.5136 0.0001 0.0753 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
HOSTILST 0.60971 O.38647 0.50069 O. 34230 0.39309 0.40486 0.54910 -0.00877 0.61560 -0.04709 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.8988 0.0001 0.5155 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
ANGEREX O.61263 0.58567 0.61558 0.33556 0.42433 O.49691 0.59749 0.16274 0.73957 0.01618 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0175 0.0001 0.8233 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
OISREGO 0.45435 0.17683 0.36880 O.40930 0.37896 O.38105 O.40588 -O.02066 0.48268 -0.02317 0.0001 0.0097 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.7643 0.0001 0.7490 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
VERBALAG 0.48041 0.41061 0.52304 O.38632 0.44106 0.50742 O.68692 0.03746 0.66943 -0.08328 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.5867 O.OOOl 0.2495 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
PHYSAGG 0.68742 O.43398 O.45993 0.32983 O.42033 0.41571 O.39944 0.02019 0.60782 0.00188 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.7696 0.0001 0.9793 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
PASSIVAG 0.43620 O.38856 0.62105 0.53735 O.64345 0.62671 0.34829 0.27084 0.71583 -0.01275 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl O.8603 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
ASSERT O.16928 0.05988 0.02967 0.02773 -O.10950 -0.05524 O.52348 -0.26022 0.10124 0.08356 0.0134 0.3845 0.6667 0.6874 0. 1110 0.422S O.OOOl O.OOOl O.1408 0.2480 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
SELFCONF -0.02103 -O.10419 -O.22245 -O.14332 -0.37603 -0.35752 0.25176 -0.42121 -0.23757 0.08187 0.7602 0.1296 0.0011 0.0366 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 O.OOOl 0.0005 0.2577 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
INITASS 0.01535 -O.09344 -O.18109 -0.14877 -O.28919 -0.23060 0.32023 -0.30217 -0.14289 0. 14160 0.8238 0. 1743 0.0081 0.0300 0.0001 0.0007 O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.0372 0.0495 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193 SAS
SEX=2
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
ASSAULT INDIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST SEXROLE
DEFENASS 0.09639 -O.05268 -O.10504 -0.07945 -O.27766 -o.18764 O.41225 -O.39211 -0.07928 0.04075 0.1610 0.4444 0.1265 0.2483 0.0001 0.0060 0.0001 0.0001 0.2493 0.5737 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
FRANK 0.19013 0.11036 0.01232 -0.02102 -0.07906 0.02219 0.50484 -0.27380 0. 11811 0.10131 0.0054 0.1083 0.8581 0.7603 0.2506 0.7474 0.0001 0.0001 0.0855 O.1609 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
PRAISE -0.08028 -0.08507 -0.21558 -0.14075 -O.35840 -0.31961 0.16394 -0.33925 -0.24072 0.11974 0.2434 0.2163 0.0016 0.0401 0.0001 0.0001 0.0166 0.0001 0.0004 0.0972 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
REQESTHE -0.05700 -0.04509 -0.11531 -0.17433 -0.25566 -0.15611 0.25523 -0.28198 -O.13093 0.07316 0.4078 0.5128 0.0932 0.0108 0.0002 0.0227 0.0002 0.0001 0.0564 0.3120 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
REFUSDEM 0.02313 -0.11136 -0.17882 -0.12434 -0.22980 -0.19270 0.19579 -0.34951 -O.16123 -0.02081 0.7372 0.1051 0.0089 0.0701 0.0007 0.0048 0.0041 0.0001 0.0185 0.7739 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
CONFLAVD -0.33806 -O.16067 -0.13645 -0.10042 O.03464 -0.10059 -O.63704 0.29586 -0.24829 -O.08978 0.0001 0.0190 0.0467 0-1441 0.6151 0.1434 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 0.2144 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
DEPENDCY 0.05698 0.26818 0.35241 O. 18382 0.40034 0.31195 0.02243 0.47425 0.37549 0.07483 0.4080 0.0001 0.0001 0.0071 0.0001 0.0001 0.7448 0.0001 0.0001 0.3010 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
SHY 0.08753 0.15623 0.28953 0.26411 O.36909 0.38623 -0.17824 0.27424 0.28314 -0.15795 0.2032 0.0226 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0091 0.0001 0.0001 0.0282 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
ASSAULT 1 OOOOO O.40192 0.48691 0.30602 0.37340 0.37055 0.45863 0.04731 0.67557 0.00208 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.4923 0.0001 0.9771 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
INDIRHOS 0.40192 1.00000 0.55476 0.28477 O.40607 O.30799 0.36076 O.22260 0.66380 -0.08314 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0011 0.0001 0.2504 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
IRRITBLE 0.48691 O.55476 1.OOOOO 0.51008 O.58258 O.58508 O.41949 O.37629 0.8S071 -0.02566 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.7232 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
NEGATIVE 0.30602 0.28477 0.51008 1.OOOOO O.40552 0.42777 O.31225 O.11183 0.58157 -O.05316 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.1036 0.0001 0.4628 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
RESENT 0.37340 0.40607 0.58258 O.40552 1.OOOOO O.63073 0.27314 0.36327 0.74557 -0.14493 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 o.oooo 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0443 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193 SAS SEX=2
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS ASSAULT INDIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST SEXROLE
SUSPICIN O.37055 0.30799 0.58508 0.63073 1.OOOOO 0.30810 0.39306 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.36C0 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193 VERBLHOS O.45863 O.36076 0.41949 0.30810 1-OOOOO -O.11003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.1093 0.0001 0.9433 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193 GUILT 0.04731 O.22260 O.37629 -0.11003 1.OOOOO 0.4923 0.0011 0.0001 0.1036 0.0001 0.0001 0.1093 0.0000 0.0001 0.8826 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
TOTLHOST O.67557 0.66380 0.85071 0.60498 0.43667 1.OOOOO -0.06266 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.3867 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193
SEXROLE 0.00208 -0.08314 -0.02566 -O.00515 0.01070 1 OOOOO 0.9771 0.2504 0.7232 0.4628 0.0443 0.3600 0.9433 0.8826 0.3867 O.OOOO 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193
t-»N> \o 220
APPENDIX D.
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR SAMPLE VARIABLES SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
ID GRADE SEX RACE AGE MARITAL DADED MOMED HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS
ID 1.00000 0.01871 -0.03950 0.02745 0.02503 -0.05475 0.01819 -0.03950 0.05288 0.03271 0.01882 -0.04991 -O.00895 O.OOOO 0.6923 0.4005 0.5592 0.5944 0.2438 0.6988 0.4006 0.2625 0.4869 0.6888 0.2880 0.8489 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
GRADE 0.01871 1.00000 0.26188 0.09286 0.56473 O.20795 -0.08718 -0.08800 0.02193 O.03767 -0.11851 0.05358 -0.00928 0.6923 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0493 0.0001 0.0001 0.0649 0.062S 0.6445 0.4263 0.0120 0.2572 0.8443 450 450 449 449 449 449 449 449 445 448 449 449 450
SEX -0.03950 0.26188 1.00000 -0.00669 0.17316 0.05606 0.00135 -0.02483 0.08162 0.00425 -0.25003 0.22558 0.02142 0.4005 0.0001 0.0000 0.8869 0.0002 0.2327 0.9771 0.5973 0.0834 0.9281 0.0001 0.0001 0.6486 455 449 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 455
RACE 0.02745 0.09286 -0.00669 1.00000 O.10893 0.12071 -0.01732 -0.05736 0.02171 -0.06938 0.05455 -0.03723 0.06638 0.5592 0.0493 0.8869 0.0000 0.0201 0.0100 0.7125 0.2220 O.G457 0.1399 0.2456 0.4282 O.1575 455 449 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 455
AGE 0.02503 O.56473 O.17316 0.10893 1.00000 -0.03738 -0.02588 -0.07036 0.01744 -0.02028 -0.00876 0.02781 -0.02984 0.5944 0.0001 0.0002 0.0201 0.0000 0.4264 0.5819 O.1340 0.7118 0.6666 0.8522 O.S541 0.5255 455 449 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 455
MARITAL -0.05475 0.20795 0.05606 O.12071 -0.03738 1.OOOOO -O.08185 -0.00071 O.00351 -0.01499 -0.02195 0.04455 O.00665 0.2438 0.0001 0.2327 0.0100 0.4264 O.OOOO 0.0811 0.9879 0.9408 0.7500 0.6406 0.3431 0.8875 455 449 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 455
DADED 0.01819 -O.08718 0.00135 -O.01732 -0.02588 -0.08185 1.00000 0.51322 0.12713 -0.18948 0.02118 -0.04735 0.03424 0.6988 0.0649 0.9771 0.7125 0.5819 0.0811 0.0000 0.0001 0.0069 0.0001 0.6522 0.3136 0.4663 455 449 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 455
MOMED -0.03950 -0.08800 -0.02483 -0.05736 -0.07036 -0.00071 0.51322 1.00000 0.07954 -O.13078 0.04220 O.06262 -O.02419 0.4006 0.0625 0.5973 0.2220 0.1340 0.9879 0.0001 0.0000 0.0916 0.0053 0.3691 0.1824 0.6068 455 449 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 455
HOME 0.05288 0.02193 0.08162 0.02171 0.01744 0.00351 O.12713 0.07954 1.OOOOO 0.07468 O.04655 -O.05075 O.02999 0.2625 0.6445 0.0834 0.6457 0.7118 0.9408 0.0069 0.0916 0.0000 0.1136 0.3239 0.2822 0.5253 451 445 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 450 451 451 451
PLACE 0.03271 0.03767 0.00425 -0.06938 -0.02028 -0.01499 -O.18948 -O.13078 0.07468 1.00000 -0.02608 -0.02254 0.00056 0.4869 0.4263 0.9281 0.1399 0.6666 0.7500 0.0001 0.0053 0.1136 0.0000 0.5794 0.6320 0.9905 454 448 454 454 454 454 454 454 450 454 454 454 454
RSA 0.01882 -O.11851 -0.25003 0.05455 -0.00876 -0.02195 0.02118 0.04220 O.04655 -0.02608 1.00000 0.14881 -0.08813 0.6888 0.0120 0.0001 0.2456 0.8522 0.6406 0.6522 0.3691 0.3239 0.5794 O.OOOO 0.0015 0.0603 455 449 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 455
RSB -0.04991 0.05358 0.22558 -0.03723 0.02781 0.04455 -0.04735 0.06262 -0.05075 -0.02254 0.14881 1.00000 -0.05203 0.2880 0.2572 0.0001 0.4282 0.5541 0.3431 0.3136 0.1824 0.2822 0.6320 0.0015 O.OOOO 0.2680 455 449 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 455
STASS -0-00895 -0.00928 0.02142 0.06638 -0.02984 0.00665 0.03424 -0.02419 0.02999 O.00056 -O.08813 -0.05203 1 OOOOO 0.8489 0.8443 0.6486 0.1575 0.5255 0.8875 0.4663 0.6068 0.5253 0.9905 0.0603 0.2680 O.OOOO 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
ID GRADE SEX RACE AGE MARITAL DADED MOMED HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS
STAST -0.01582 -0.06141 -0.00785 0.09577 -0.00644 0.03448 -0.01173 -O.02646 0.01634 O.00307 -0.07430 0.05244 0.42130 0.7362 0.1935 0.8674 0.0412 0.8911 0.4631 0.8029 0.5735 0.7292 0.9481 0.1135 0.2643 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
AXOUT 0.04060 -0.01016 0.09138 0.05505 0.06185 0.05385 0.03287 -0.00914 -0.08589 0.00S40 -0.10562 O.21757 O.25246 0.3870 0.8298 0.0514 0.2412 0.1878 0.2517 0.4843 0.8459 0.0684 0.9086 0.0243 0.0001 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
AXIN -0.03488 -O.15371 -0.01333 0.03651 -O.07188 -0.02007 -0.00998 0.00608 0.02156 -0.01431 -O.13876 -0.15521 0.27778 0.4574 0.0011 0.7767 0.4372 0.1257 0.6693 0.8319 0.8970 0.6479 0.7611 0.0030 0.0009 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
AXCON 0.00224 0.00425 0.01999 -0.07939 0.00133 -O.09185 -O.06274 0.00121 0.03683 0.03608 0.23871 -O.00577 -O.19823 0.9620 0.9284 0.6706 0.0908 0.9775 0.0502 0.1816 0.9794 0.4353 0.4431 0.0001 0.9024 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 4SI 454 455 455 456
AXEX 0.00012 -0.07664 0.02209 0.08140 -0.00729 O.06164 0.04215 -0.00172 -0.04563 -0.02305 -0.23263 0.02427 0.33708 0.9980 0.1045 0.6384 0.0828 0.8767 0.1894 0.3697 0.9707 0.3337 0.6242 0.0001 0.6056 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
BDI -0.01362 -O.07903 -0.14173 0.10986 -0.03129 -0.00212 -0.03834 -0.05229 -O.10519 -O.04559 -0.08105 -0.21160 0.30708 0.7717 0.0941 0.0024 0.0191 0.5056 0.9640 0.4146 0.2657 0.0255 0.3324 0.0842 0.0001 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
DENIAL -0.04812 0.03689 0.01585 0.14645 -0.07346 0.00129 -0.06670 -0.06583 0.00330 0.01992 0.07504 0.00617 -O.11329 0.3053 0.4350 0.7359 0.0017 0.1177 0.9782 0.1555 0.1609 0.9442 0.6721 0.1099 0.8956 0.0155 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
INFREQ -0.05837 -0.00829 0.20554 0.13239 0.00408 -0.00941 0.04513 0.03348 -0.01085 -O.06088 -0.29667 0.10770 0.22804 0.2134 0.8608 0.0001 0.0047 0.9309 0.8413 0.3368 0.4762 0.8183 O.1954 0.0001 0.0216 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
IMPRESS -0.00153 0.10469 0.18047 0.02569 0.00806 0.03608 -0.02834 -0.02681 0.02953 -0.04611 0.12597 0.04016 -0.20265 0.9740 0.0264 0.0001 0.5847 0.8639 0.4427 0.5465 0.5683 0.5316 0.3270 0.0071 0.3927 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
AGGRESS 0.00681 0.01970 0.26769 0.02109 0.04442 0.04519 0.01964 0.00582 0.04372 -0.05095 -0.42959 0.15491 0.21479 0.8846 0.6768 0.0001 0.6537 0.3445 0.3362 0.6760 0.9015 0.3543 0.2786 0.0001 0.0009 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
HOSTILST -0.00315 0.04742 0.32356 0.04367 0.09076 0.03153 0.02202 -0.00289 0.00996 -0.03003 -0.35242 0.21475 0.16697 0.9466 0.3155 0.0001 0.3526 0.0530 0.5022 0.6395 0.9510 0.8323 0.5233 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
ANGEREX 0.05025 -0.05140 O.08333 0.07446 0.04870 0.05733 0.01699 -0.03204 -O.01896 -0.01489 -0.10522 0.22734 O.33795 G.2843 0.2765 0.0756 O.1127 0.2999 0.2223 0.7178 0.4955 0.6880 0.7517 0.0248 0.0001 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
OISREGD -0.08562 O.10787 0.24688 0.15155 0.06490 0.06061 -0.06801 -0.00194 -0.04885 -0.07427 -0.36853 0.19551 0.15198 0.0677 0.0221 0.0001 0.0012 O.1669 0.1969 0.1475 0.9670 0.3006 0.1140 0.0001 0.0001 0.0011 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456 SAS
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO:RHO= O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
ID GRADE SEX RACE AGE MARITAL DAOED HOMED HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS
VERBALAG 0.02813 0.02435 0.05280 -0.00992 -0.05236 -0.29250 0.26566 O.19619 0.5490 0.4187 0.0001 0.6045 0.2610 0.2840 0.3333 0.8127 0.8336 0.2656 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 4SI 454 455 455 456
PHYSAGG -0.02392 0.06544 0.09015 0.04562 0.00238 -0.23930 O.26438 0.26019 0.6104 0.0762 0.0001 0.1634 0.0546 0.3047 0.4065 0.5709 0.3337 0.9596 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
PASSIVAG 0.00949 -O.08608 -< 0. 16170 0.01289 0.01149 0.030S5 -O.13240 -O.13299 O.32452 0.8398 0.0681 0.2234 0.0005 0.7839 0.9304 0.8857 0.5555 0.8078 0.5162 0.0047 0.0045 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
ASSERT -0.00160 0.11221 -0.13098 0. 10663 -0.08162 -0.0709S -0.01440 O.62667 -O.04700 0.9728 0.0173 0.0001 0.0051 0.0229 0.8059 0.4713 0.5760 0.0834 0.1312 0.7593 0.0001 0.3166 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 4SI 454 455 455 456
SELFCONF Ô.04930 0. 11761 -0.09024 0.06228 -0.07426 -0.08479 O.10124 O.38942 -O.23517 0.2935 0.012S 0.1845 0.0544 0.1848 0.8337 0.9210 0.6689 0.1153 0.0711 0.0308 0.0001 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 4SS 451 454 455 455 456
INITASS -0.02738 0.08995 -0.16451 0.06410 -0.07732 -0.01707 0.04285 O.63452 -O.14232 0.5598 O.OS66 0.0001 0.0004 0.1723 0.7070 0.3830 0.7643 0.1010 0.7169 0.3618 0.0001 0.0023 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 4SI 454 455 455 456
OEFENASS 0.01735 0.17000 -O.10872 0.10905 3.00301 0.08290 -0.06139 -0.07183 -O.02916 0.52237 M -O.20314 N) 0.7117 0.0003 0.0001 0.0204 0.0200 0.4674 0.9489 0.0773 0.1932 0.1265 0.5350 0.0001 0.0001 w 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
FRANK -0.02039 0.09347 -0.05943 0.01807 -0.01323 -0.05522 0.04010 O.45008 -O.05158 0.6641 0.0475 0.3663 0.2057 0.7006 0.6104 0.2259 0.0404 0.7794 0.2403 0.3935 0.0001 0.2717 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
PRAISE 0.05178 0.07032 -0.08076 0.02964 -O.04835 -O.10893 O.21715 O.25468 -0.16431 0.2698 O.1364 0.1932 0.0853 0.5283 0.6043 0.3105 0.4624 0.3055 0.0203 0.0001 0.0001 0.0004 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
REOESTHE 0.04498 0.08829 -0.09451 0.07221 -0.04224 -0.04722 O.04569 O.28399 -O.15247 0.3378 0.0613 0.2720 0.0439 0.1240 0.6912 0.9544 0.6270 0.3708 0.3155 0.3308 0.0001 0.0011 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 - 455 455 456
REFUSDEM 0.00631 0.12612 -O.16247 0.07873 -0.00608 -0.03708 O.02526 O.31132 -O.15935 0.8931 0.0074 0.1185 0.0005 0.0935 0.2108 0.5892 0.7966 0.8976 0.4306 0.5909 0.0001 0.0006 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
CQNFLAVO 0.00288 -0.10541 O.08452 -0.07510 0.05014 0.04932 0.07995 -0.52046 0.01681 0.9511 0.0253 0.0001 0.0717 0.1097 0.4753 0.3356 0.2058 0.2880 0.2943 0.0885 0.0001 0.7203 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
DEPENDCY 0.03158 -0.15832 0.14967 0.00886 0.11249 0.01627 0.20080 -0.34976 0.21166 0.5012 0.0008 0.0001 0.0014 0.8505 0.8436 0.0982 0.5945 0.0169 0.7295 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
ID GRADE SEX RACE AGE MARITAL DAOEO MOMED HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS SHY -0.02993 0.00160 0.00074 0.14778 -0.03012 0.05046 -0.03962 -O.04135 O.06264 -0.05598 -O.23353 -O.43537 O.19896 0.5239 0.9730 0.9875 0.0016 0.5216 0.2828 0.3991 0.3789 0.1842 0.2339 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
ASSAULT -O.03224 O.05464 0.36143 0.06902 0.04201 o.oeaso -0.03937 0.00938 0.05178 -0.04774 -O.17935 0.24609 0.20502 0.4922 0.2474 0.0001 0.1416 0.3713 0.1736 0.4021 0.8418 0.2725 0.3101 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
INDIRHOS -0.00394 -0.11129 -0.05779 -0.01086 0.00332 0.01268 0.07333 -0.03839 -0.02197 -0.00661 O.03174 0.01338 O.23615 0.9332 0.0182 0.2186 0.8173 0.9437 0.7874 0.1183 0.4140 0.6417 0.8882 0.4994 0.7760 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
IRRITBLE 0.02438 -O.11178 -O.09537 0.02769 0.03683 0.01195 0.01248 -0.01447 0.01172 -0.01968 -0.12527 -O.09191 0.33302 0.6035 0.0177 0.0420 0.5558 0.4332 0.7993 0.7906 0.7582 0.8040 0.6758 0.0075 0.0501 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
NEGATIVE -0.01283 0.00955 0.07374 0.14335 0.08243 0.01908 -0.02035 -0.04127 -0.00369 -0.09496 -0.19764 0.07607 0.19001 0.7847 0.8399 O.1163 0.0022 0.0790 0.6848 0.6651 0.3798 0.9378 0.0431 0.0001 0.1051 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
RESENT -0.06791 -0.07680 -0.01028 0.00433 0.01778 -0.06349 -0.05397 -0.02050 0.00344 0.01267 -O.16917 -0.12732 0.33155 0.1477 O.1037 0.8268 0.9266 0.7053 0.1764 0.2506 0.6627 0.9420 0.7878 0.0003 0.0065 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
SUSPICIN -0.03035 -0.13166 -O.13136 O.11143 -0.05788 -O.05911 -0.03555 0.03741 -0.01512 -0.04313 -0.07531 -0.05710 0.34150 0.5180 0.0052 0.0050 0.0174 0.2178 0.2082 0.4494 0.4260 0.7488 0.3592 0.1087 0.2242 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
VERBLHOS 0.02223 0.07340 0.20368 0.02151 0.04745 0.04679 0.00682 0.02148 0.00793 -0.02845 -0.13603 0.41461 0.10667 0.6358 0.1200 0.0001 0.6473 0.3125 0.3193 0.8847 0.6476 0.8666 0.5454 0.0036 0.0001 0.0227 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
GUILT -0.02004 -O.23345 -O.14317 0.09228 -O.09581 0.00261 -0.00986 -0.06318 0.03846 O.08253 0.11032 -O.19619 O.20212 0.6696 0.0001 0.0022 0.0492 0.0411 0.9558 0.8339 0.1785 0.4152 0.0790 0.0186 0.0001 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
TOTLHOST -0.02125 -0.09921 0.05146 0.08212 0.01206 0.00945 -0.01305 -0.01586 0.01699 -0.02393 -0.14304 0.07313 0.37827 0.6508 0.0354 0.2733 0.0801 0.7975 0.8406 0.7813 0.7358 0.7190 0.6111 0.0022 0.1193 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
DIM1 -0.01546 0.06307 0.36756 0.06524 0.07776 0.05599 -0.00303 -0.00066 O.02181 -0.04817 -0.38324 0.25803 0.23459 0.7419 0.1817 0.0001 0. 1648 0.0976 0.2332 0.9485 0.9887 0.6441 0.3058 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
DIM2 0.01543 -0.03742 0.05088 0.08305 0.02703 0.06559 0.02923 -0.01957 -0.02505 -0.01441 -0.14418 0.17135 0.36260 0.7425 0.4284 0.2788 0-0768 0.5652 O.1625 0.5340 0.6772 0.5957 0.7595 0.0020 0.0002 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
DIM3 -0.01930 -0.12432 -0.05299 0.11169 -0.01494 -O.00508 -0.01352 -0.00034 0.01482 O.00078 -0.14498 -O.08819 0.44755 0.6811 0.0083 0.2593 0.0172 0.7506 0.9139 0.7736 0.9943 0.7536 0.9868 0.0019 0.0602 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
ID GRADE SEX RACE AGE MARITAL DADED MOMED HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS
FACTOR1 -0.02519 0.12296 0.43862 0.05830 0.09101 0.05081 -0.01949 0.00555 0.02540 -0.05460 -0.39954 0.29960 O.08957 0.5916 0.0090 0.0001 0.2146 0.0524 0.2794 0.6784 0.9061 0.5905 0.2456 0.0001 0.0001 0.0560 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
FACT0R2 0.05788 -0.03469 -0.00381 O.02238 O.02802 0.07258 0.05831 -0.02187 -0.03803 0.00301 0.02096 0.21214 0.25143 0.2174 0.4630 0.9355 0.6340 0.5S10 0.1221 0.2144 0.6417 0.4205 0.9490 0.6557 0.0001 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
FACT0R3 -0.04285 -0.16509 -0.19473 0.09119 -0.03824 -0.06046 -0.03203 0.00346 0.01006 -0.00481 -O.10779 -O.28711 O.36853 0.3613 0.0004 0.0001 0.0519 0.4159 0.1980 0.4955 0.9413 0.8313 0.9186 0.0215 0.0001 0.0001 456 450 455 455 455 455 455 455 451 454 455 455 456
STAST AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX GDI DENIAL INFREO IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGD
ID -0.01582 0.04060 -0.03488 0.00224 0.00012 -0.01362 -0.04812 -O.OS837 -0.00153 0.00681 -0.0031S 0.05025 -0.08562 0.7362 0.3870 0.4574 0.9620 0.9980 0.7717 0.3053 0.2134 0.9740 0.8846 0.9466 0.2843 0.0677 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
GRADE -0.06141 -0.01016 -0.15371 0.00425 -O.07664 -0.07903 0.03689 -0.00829 0.10469 0.01970 0.04742 -O.05140 O.10787 0.1935 0.8298 0.0011 0.9284 0.1045 0.0941 0.4350 0.8608 0.0264 0.6768 0.3155 0.2765 0.0221 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450
SEX -0.00785 0.09138 -0.01333 0.01999 0.02209 -O.14173 O.01585 0.20554 O.18047 0.26769 0.32356 O.08339 0.24688 0.8674 0.0514 0.7767 0.6706 0.6384 0.0024 0.7359 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0756 0.0001 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455
RACE 0.09577 0.05505 0.03651 -O.07939 0.08140 0.10986 O.14645 0.13239 0.02S69 0.02109 0.04367 O.07446 0.15155 0.0412 0.2412 0.4372 0.0908 0.0828 0.0191 0.0017 0.0047 0.5847 0.6537 0.3526 0.1127 0-0012 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455
AGE -0.00644 0.06185 -0.07188 0.00133 -0.00729 -O.03129 -0.07346 0.00408 0.00806 0.04442 0.09076 O.04870 0.06490 0.8911 0.1878 O.1257 0.9775 0.8767 0.5056 0.1177 0.9309 0.8639 0.3445 0.0530 0.2999 0.1669 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455
MARITAL 0.03448 0.05385 0.06164 -0.00212 0.00129 -0.00941 0.03608 0.04519 0.03153 0.05733 0.06061 0.4631 0.2517 0.6693 0.0502 0.1894 0.9640 0.9782 0.8413 0.4427 0.3362 0.5022 0.2223 0.1969 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455
DADEO -0.01173 0.03287 0.04215 -0.03834 -0.06670 0.04513 -0.02834 0.01964 0.02202 0.01699 -O.06801 0.8029 0.4843 0.8319 0.1816 .3697 0.4146 0.1555 O.3368 .5465 0.6760 0.639S 0.7178 0.1475 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455
MOWED -0.02646 -0.00914 0.00608 0.00121 -0.00172 -0.05229 -0.06583 0.03348 -0.02681 -0.00289 -0.03204 -0.00194 0.5735 0.8459 0.8970 0.9794 0.9707 0.2657 . 1609 0.4762 0.5683 0.9015 0.9510 0.4955 0.9670 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455
HOME 0.01634 -0.08589 0.02156 0.03683 -0.04563 -0.10519 0.00330 -0.01085 0.02953 0.04372 0.00996 -0.01896 -O.04885 0.7292 0.0684 0.6479 0.4353 O.3337 0.0255 0.9442 0.8183 O.S316 0.3543 0.8329 0.6880 0.3006 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 4SI
PLACE 0.00307 0.00540 0.03608 -0.02305 -0.04559 0.01992 -0.06088 -0.04611 -0.05095 -0.03003 -0.01489 -0.07427 0.9481 0.9086 0.7S11 0.4431 O.G242 O.3324 0.6721 O.1954 0.3270 0.2786 0.5233 0.7517 0.1140 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
STAST AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREO IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX OISREGO
RSA -0.07430 -O.10562 -O.13876 O.23871 -0.23263 -0.08105 0.07504 -O.29667 O.12597 -O.42959 -O.35242 -0.10522 -O.36853 0.1135 0.0243 0.0030 0.0001 0.0001 0.0842 0.1099 0.0001 0.0071 0.0001 0.0001 0.0248 0.0001 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455
RSB 0.05244 O.21757 -0.15521 -O.00577 0.02427 -0.21160 0.00617 0.10770 0.04016 O.15491 0.21475 0.22734 0.19551 0.2643 0.0001 0.0009 0.9024 0.6056 0.0001 0.8956 0.0216 0.3927 0.0009 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455
STASS 0.42130 0.25246 0.27778 -O.19823 0.33708 0.30708 -O.11329 0.22804 -0.20265 0.21479 0.16697 0.33795 0.15198 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0155 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0011 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
STAST 1.00000 O.61292 O.33924 -0.54865 0.70086 0.43584 -0.34907 0.38434 -0.47517 0.47611 0.42918 0.65227 0.37384 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
AXOUT O.61292 1.00000 0.12248 -0.54877 0.76597 0.20760 -0.27330 0.37374 -0.36961 0.46842 0.45601 0.69445 0.39665 0.0001 0.0000 0.0088 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
AXIN O.33924 O.12248 1 OOOOO -O.10437 O.56209 0.40508 -O.19080 0.16666 -0.28690 O.23695 O.19495 0.17174 0.19845 0.0001 0.0088 O.OOOO 0.0258 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 lo 0.0001 to 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 o\
AXCON -0.54865 -0.54877 -0.10437 1.00000 -0.80268 -0.24853 0.30094 -0.27945 0.42417 -0.37205 -0.34465 -0.58922 -0.27181 0.0001 0.0001 0.0258 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
AXEX 0.70086 O.76597 0.56209 -O.80268 1 OOOOO 0.40239 -0.35996 0.38024 -0.50985 0.50075 0.46203 0.68025 0.40042 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
BDI O.43584 O.20760 O.40508 -0.24853 0.40239 1.00000 -0.05447 0.24230 -0.30636 0.16466 0.08861 O.30712 O.13096 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.2457 0.0001 0.0001 0.0004 0.0587 0.0001 0.0051 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 DENIAL -G.34907 -0.27330 -0.19080 0.30094 -0.35996 -0.05447 1.00000 -0.06649 0.39800 -0.41105 -O.36428 -0.31790 -0.15457 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.2457 O.OOOO 0.1564 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0009 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 INFREQ 0.38434 O.37374 0.16666 -0.27945 0.38024 0.24230 -0-06649 1.OOOOO -O.24193 O.55151 O.45253 0.40287 0.49007 0.0001 0.0001 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.1564 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
IMPRESS -O.47517 -0.36961 -0.28890 0.42417 -O.50985 -O.30636 0.39800 -O.24193 1.OOOOO -O.39765 -0.33290 -0.50386 -O.18827 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
AGGRESS 0.47611 0.46842 0.23695 -0.37205 0.50075 0.16466 -0.41105 0.55151 -O.39765 1.00000 O.87601 0.58876 0.64771 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.000.4 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 5A;» PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
STAST AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREQ IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGD
HOSTILST 0.42918 O.45601 O.19495 -O.34465 0.46203 0.08861 -O.36428 O.45253 -O.33290 0.87601 1.00000 0.51871 0.75573 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0587 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
ANGEREX O.65227 0.69445 0.17174 -O.58922 O.68025 O.30712 -0.31790 0.40287 -0.50386 0.58876 0.51871 1.00000 0.38928 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
DISREGD O.37384 O.39665 O.19845 -O.27181 0.40042 0.13096 -0.15457 0.49007 -0.18827 0.64771 0.75573 0.38928 1.00000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0051 0.0009 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
VERBALAG O.44944 0.53331 O.10947 -0.41616 0.49318 0.09242 -0.31236 0.58205 3.42912 0.73063 0.70488 O.62096 O.52082 0.0001 0.0001 0.0194 0.0001 0.0001 0.0486 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
PHYSAGG 0.36231 0.43216 0.13006 -0.30693 0.40265 0.12510 -0.15544 0.47115 3.17641 0.59667 0.62476 O.56864 0.55137 0.0001 0.0001 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.0075 0.0009 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 .0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
PASSIVAG 0.55904 0.40373 0.40662 -0.38726 0.55864 0.50278 -0.26849 0.40682 D.49390 0.47442 O.42174 0.51731 O.39016 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
ASSERT O.02708 0.21890 -0.21872 -0.06455 0.02673 -0.21830 -O.11334 O.10652 O.22084 O.22466 0.5641 0.0001 0.0001 0.1688 0.5692 0.0001 0.0155 0.0229 0.4146 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 K 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
SELFCONF -0.29312 -0.03537 -0.39667 0.08656 -0.24098 -0.44280 0.04225 -O.16802 -0.10618 O.01111 0.0001 0.4512 0.0001 0.0648 0.0001 0.0001 0.3680 0.0003 0.0001 0.0149 0.6150 0.0233 0.8129 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
INITASS -0.15092 0.05124 -0.25113 0.08735 -0.13842 -0.26989 -0.00303 -0.03674 O.05132 0.05646 0.0012 0.2749 0.0001 0.0624 0.0031 0.0001 0.9486 0.4338 0.0061 0.9810 0.0507 0.2741 0.2289 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
DEFENASS -O.06902 O. 14732 -O.32620 -0.03355 -0.06875 -0.31350 -O.04607 -0.02433 O.06892 0.06646 O.16613 0.07268 0.15622 0.1411 0.0016 0.0001 0.4749 O.1427 0.0001 0.3263 0.6043 0.1417 0.1565 0.0004 0.1212 0.0008 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
FRANK 0.02824 0.29342 -0.36730 -0.15288 0.03675 -0.19762 -0.01152 0.06278 O.21748 0.11755 0.5475 0.0001 0.0001 0.0011 0.4337 0.0001 0.8061 0.1808 0.1165 0.1177 0.0063 0.0001 0.0120 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
PRAISE -0.26856 -0.06887 -0.31245 O.10682 -O.22738 -0.33067 0.01306 -O.22898 0.26311 -0.18415 -0.05464 -0.11820 -0.06864 • 0.0001 0.1420 0.0001 0.0225 0.0001 0.0001 0.7809 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.2442 0.0115 0.1434 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
REQESTHE -O.11923 0.08827 -0.33480 -0.02582 -0.10170 -O.28497 -0.04497 -0.14495 0.01279 0.00572 0.0108 0.0596 0.0001 0.5824 0.0299 0.0001 0.3380 0.0019 0.4085 0.8226 0.1182 0.7853 0.9031 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
STAST AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREO IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGO
REFUSDEM -O.16872 O.00249 -O.31041 O.00608 -O.14357 -0.28683 -0.02902 -0.09361 0.00843 0.00540 0.03356 -0.00138 -0.00075 0.0003 0.9578 0.0001 0.8970 0.0021 0.0001 0.5365 0.0457 0.8575 0.9084 0.4747 0.9765 0.9873 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
CONFLAVD -0.14613 -0.41885 0.27245 0.24661 -0.18206 0.16128 0.10668 -0.15071 0.15260 -0.26847 -O.30603 -0.42036 -0.24654 0.0018 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0005 0.0227 0.0012 0.0011 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
OEPENOCV 0.28953 O.12958 0.23419 -0.17471 0.25291 0.33156 -O.17503 0.08357 -0.21943 0.04169 0.03840 0.13087 0.01034 0.0001 0.0056 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0746 0.0001 0.3745 0.4134 0.0051 0.8258 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
SHY O.21474 0.04000 O.36733 -O.11011 O.24189 0.32921 0.00997 0.18521 -0.16424 0.14851 0.04179 0.07641 O.07961 0.0001 0.3941 0.0001 0.0187 0.0001 0.0001 0.8319 0.0001 0.0004 0.0015 0.3733 0.1032 0.0895 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
ASSAULT 0.43335 0.46795 0.10399 -0.33471 0.42044 0.09653 -0.16645 0.38691 -0.15999 O.52568 O.59125 0.50927 O.46983 0.0001 0.0001 0.0264 0.0001 0.0001 0.0394 0.0004 0.0001 0.0006 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
INOIRHOS 0.43104 0.39415 0.27036 -0.37690 0.48708 0.20603 -0.34690 0.20305 -0.41364 0.32468 O.31492 0.53382 0.15258 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0-0011 to 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 00 IRRITBLE 0.63682 0.45164 0.43821 -0.47207 0.63766 0.45813 -0.41792 0.26483 -0.53591 0.43932 O.39857 0.54439 0.31173 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
NEGATIVE 0.34614 0.29681 0.20826 -0.21939 O.33523 0.19877 -0.16946 0.37326 -0.31099 0.40821 O.37769 0.30699 O.38713 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
RESENT 0.52520 0.35107 0.39600 -O.35940 0.51695 0.43046 -O.26936 O.34192 -0.40048 0.38015 O.32756 O.38773 O.31307 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0-0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 SUSPICIN 0.48540 0.33576 O.36750 -0.29061 0.46151 O.42185 -O.27557 0.29788 -O.43214 0.40235 O.32444 0.40985 0-30880 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0-0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
VERBLHOS O.41691 0.59002 -0.04374 -O.39833 0.43805 0.07297 -0.27005 O.34548 -0.29351 0.46934 0.49098 0.59896 0-40368 0.0001 0.0001 0.3514 0.0001 0.0001 0.1197 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0-0001 0-0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 - 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
GUILT 0.32405 O.13920 0.34511 -O.I1907 0.27843 0.41606 -0.14880 0.10781 -0.23892 0.03919 -0.02501 0.18251 -0-03633 0.0001 0.0029 0.0001 0.0109 0.0001 0.0001 0.0014 0-0213 0.0001 0.4037 0.5943 0.0001 0.4390 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
TOTLHOST O.71277 0.61103 0.39548 -O.51588 0.70855 O.44558 -O.41002 0.45174 -0.54156 0.59152 0.55929 0.69868 0-45630 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 .456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 SAS
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
STAST AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREQ IMPRE! AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGO
DIM1 O.50615 0.54624 0.91207 0.94261 0.63870 O.78246 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0030 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
OIM2 0.85892 0.82381 0.23071 -0.77010 0.85645 0.35688 -0.39419 O.43644 O.58062 O.54109 0.87040 0.43530 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
D1M3 0.83695 0.52812 0.53174 O.46733 0.61420 0.42198 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
FACTOR1 0.23650 0.33719 O.84101 0.91801 0.39645 O.80308 0.0001 0.0001 O.1867 0.0004 0.0001 0.4353 0.0001 0.0001 0.0011 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
FACTORS 0.64307 0.78358 0.27065 O.22385 0.80015 0.08847 0.0001 0.0001 0.9465 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0591 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
FACTORS 0.54023 0.18890 0.32548 0.23323 0.28072 0.26309 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 o.ooot 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
VERBALAG PHYSAGG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS DEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REOESTHE REFUSOEM CONFLAVO OEPENDCY to ID 0.02813 -0.02392 0.02039 0.05178 0.04498 0.00631 0.00288 0.03158 so 0.5490 0.6104 0.8398 0.9728 0.2935 0.5598 0.7117 0.6641 0.2698 0.3378 0.8931 0.9511 0.5012 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
GRADE 0.03821 0.08366 0.09347 0.07032 0.08829 0.12612 -0.10541 -O.15832 0.4187 0.0762 0.0681 0.0173 0.0125 0.0566 0.0003 0.047S 0.1364 0.0613 0.0074 0.0253 0.0008 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 4SO 4SO 450 450
SEX O.22718 0.43807 0.04245 -0.06111 0.05160 0.07329 -O.21859 -0.20253 0.0001 0.0001 0.2234 0.0001 0.1845 0.0001 0.0001 0.3663 0.1932 0.2720 0.1185 0.0001 0.0001 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455
RACE 0.02435 0.06544 •0.05943 -0.08076 -0.09451 -O.16247 0.08452 0.14967 0.6045 0.1634 0.0005 0.0051 0.0544 0.0004 0.0204 0.2057 0.0853 0.0439 0.0005 0.0717 0.0014 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455
AGE O.05280 0.09015 0.01807 0.02964 0.07221 0.07873 -0.07510 0.00886 0.2610 0.0546 0.7839 0.0229 O. 1848 O. 1723 0.0200 0.7006 0.5283 O.1240 0.0935 O.1097 0.8505 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455
MARITAL 0.05034 0.04822 0.02395 -0.02436 0.01867 -0.05878 -O.03355 0.00928 0.2840 0.3047 0.9304 0.8059 0.8337 0.7070 0.4674 0.6104 0.6043 0.6912 0.2108 0.4753 0.8436 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455
DADED 0.04546 -0.03901 0.05688 0.04765 -0.00269 -0.02538 -0.04524 O.07763 0.3333 0.4065 0.8857 0.4713 0.9210 0.3830 0.9489 0.2259 0.3105 0.9544 0.5892 0.3356 0.0982 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO:RHO» =0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
VERBALAG PHYSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS DEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REOESTHE REFUSDEM CONFLAVD DEPENOCY HOMED 0.01114 -0.02664 0.02771 0.02628 0.02010 0.01409 O.08290 O.09611 0.03453 0.02284 O.01212 -0.05943 O.02502 0.8127 0.5709 0-5555 0.5760 0.6689 0.7643 0.0773 0.0404 0.4624 0.6270 0.7966 0.2058 0.5945 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455
HOME -0.00992 0.04562- 0.01149 -0.08162 -0.07426 -0.07732 -0.06139 -0.01323 •-0.04835 -0.04224 -0.00608 0.05014 0.11249 0.8336 0.3337 0.8078 0.0834 0.1153 O.1010 O.1932 0.7794 0.3055 0.3708 0.8976 0.2880 0.0169 451 451 451 451 451 451 4SI 451 451 451 451 4SI 4SI
PLACE -0.05236 0.00238 0.03055 -0.07095 -0.08479 -0.01707 -0.07183 0.05522 -0.10893 -0.04722 -0.03708 0.04932 0.01627 0.2656 0.9596 0.5162 0.1312 0.0711 0.7169 O.1265 0.2403 0.0203 0.3155 0.4306 0.2943 0.7295 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454
RSA -O.29250 -0.23930 -0.13240 -0.01440 0.10124 0.04285 -0.02916 0.04010 0.21715 0.04569 -0.02526 0.07995 0.20080 0.0001 0.0001 0.0047 0.7593 0.0308 0.3618 0.5350 0.3935 0.0001 0.3308 0.5909 0.0885 0.0001 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455
RSB 0.26566 0.26438 -O.13299 O.62667 O.38942 O.63452 O.52237 0.45008 O.25468 O.28399 O.31132 -0.52046 -O.34976 0.0001 0.0001 0.0045 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 STASS 0.19619 0.26019 0.32452 -0.04700 -0.23517 -0.14232 -O.20314 -O.05158 -0.16431 -0.15247 -0.15935 0.01681 O.21166 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.3166 0.0001 0.0023 0.0001 0.2717 0-0004 0.0011 0.0006 0.7203 0.0001 to w 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 o STAST 0.44944 0.36231 0.55904 O.02708 -0.29312 -0.15092 -0.06902 0.02824 -O.26856 -O.I1923 -0.16872 -0.14613 0.28953 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.5641 0.0001 0.0012 O.1411 0.5475 0.0001 0.0108 0.0003 0.0018 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
AXOUT 0.53331 0.43216 0.40373 0.21890 -O.03537 0.05124 0.14732 0.29342 -0.06887 0.08827 0.00249 -0.41885 0.12958 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.4512 0.2749 0.0016 0.0001 0.1420 O.OS96 0.9578 0.0001 0-00S6 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
AXIN O.10947 0.13006 0.40662 -0.21872 -O.39667 -0.25113 -0.32620 -O.36730 -0.31245 -0.33480 -0.31041 0.27245 0-23419 0.0194 0.0054 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
AXCON -O.41616 -O.30693 -O.38726 -O.06455 O.08656 0.08735 -O.03355 -O.15288 O.10682 -0.02582 0.00608 0-24661 -O.17471 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.1688 0.0648 0.0624 0.4749 0.0011 0.0225 0.5824 0.8970 0-0001 0-0002 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
AXEX O.49318 0.40265 O.55864 0.02673 -0.24098 -O.13842 -0.06875 0.03675 -0.22738 -O.10170 -0.14357 -O.18206 O.25291 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.5692 0.0001 0.0031 0.1427 0.4337 0.0001 0.0299 0.0021 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
BDI 0.09242 O.12510 0.S0278 -0.21830 -0.44280 -O.26989 -0.31350 -O.19762 -O.33067 -O.28497 -O.23683 O.16128 O.33156 0.0486 0.0075 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0005 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
DENIAL -0.31236 -0.15544 -0.26849 -O.I1334 0.04225 -0.00303 -0.04607 -0.01152 0.01306 -O.04497 -0.02902 O.10668 -0.17503 0.0001 0.0009 0.0001 0.0155 0.3680 0.9486 0.3263 0.8061 0.7809 0.3380 0.5365 0.0227 0.0002 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROS > |R| UNDER H0:RH0= O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
VERBALAG PHYSAGG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS DEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REQESTHE REFUSDEM CÛNFLAV0 DEPENOCY
INFREQ 0.58205 0.47115 0.10652 -0.16802 -0.22898 -0.14495 -0.09361 -0.1S071 O.08357 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0229 0.0003 0.4338 0.6043 O.1808 0.0001 0.0019 0.0457 0.0012 0.0746 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
IMPRESS -O.42912 -0.17641 -0.03830 0.21175 -0.07361 0.26311 0.03880 O.00843 0.15260 -O.21943 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.4146 0.0001 0.0061 0.1417 0.1165 0.0001 0.4085 0.8575 0.0011 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
AGGRESS 0.73063 0.59667 0.18661 -0.11392 0.07336 -0.18415 -0.01053 0.00540 -O.26847 0.04169 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0149 0.9810 0.1565 0.1177 0.0001 0.8226 0.9084 0.0001 0.374S 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
HOSTILST 0.70488 0.62476 0.30286 0.02362 0.12766 -0.05464 0.07327 0.03356 -0.30603 0.03840 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.6150 0.0507 0.0004 0.0063 0.2442 0.1182 0.4747 0.0001 0.4134 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
ANGEREX 0.62096 0.56864 0.51731 0.22084 -0.10618 0.05132 0.07268 0.21748 -0.11820 0.01279 -0.00138 -0.42036 0.13087 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0233 0.2741 0.1212 0.0001 0.0115 0.7853 0.9765 0.0001 0.0051 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
OISREGO 0.52082 0.55137 0.22466 0.01111 O.05646 O.15622 0.11755 -0.06864 0.00572 -0.00075 -0.24654 0.01034 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.8129 0.2289 0.0008 0.0120 0.1434 0.9031 0.9873 0.0001 0.8258 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
VERBALAG 1.00000 0.49303 0.41415 0.35908 0.02539 O.14139 O.19458 O.32547 -0.05715 O.10544 0.07232 -0.50682 0.02318 to O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.5886 0.0025 0.0001 0.0001 0.2232 0.0243 0.1230 0.0001 0.6215 w 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
PHYSAGG 0.49303 1.00000 0.37409 0.23805 -0.05823 O. 11477 O.10351 0.08802 -O.12707 -0.04794 -O.01052 -0.29163 -0.04615 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.2146 0.0142 0.0271 0.0604 0.0066 0.3070 0.8228 0.0001 0.3254 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
PASSIVAG 0.41415 0.37409 -0.11360 -O.40258 -O.14300 -0.34980 -0.22170 -0.33034 0.07215 0.43729 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0152 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0022 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.1239 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
ASSERT 0.35908 0.23805 -O.11360 1.OOOOO O.56333 O.85756 0.64022 O.52512 O.45837 0.39573 0.42390 -0.62704 -0.29864 0.0001 0.0001 0.0152 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
SELFCONF 0.02539 -0.05823 0.56333 1.OOOOO O.51022 0.61995 0.48386 0.78636 0.73694 0.53087 -0.44407 -0.40091 0.5886 0.2146 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 o.oooi 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
INITASS O.14139 O.11477 O.85756 0.51022 1.00000 0.56107 O.45124 0.41561 0.34977 0.41379 -0.53283 -0.3580S 0.0025 0.0142 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOI 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
DEFENASS 0.19458 O.10351 0.64022 0.61995 0.56107 0.56492 0.43975 0.52006 0.58229 -0.62403 -0.43879 0.0001 0.0271 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOI 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROS > |R| UNDER HO:RH0=O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
VERBALAG PHYSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS OEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REQESTHE REFUSDEM CONFLAVO DEPENDCY
FRANK O.32547 0.08802 -0.14300 0.52512 O.48386 O.45124 0.56492 1.00000 0.34920 0.43716 0.38552 -0.74824 -0.28841 0.0001 0.0604 0.0022 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
PRAISE -0.05715 -0.12707 -0.34980 0.45837 0.78636 0.41561 0.43975 0.34920 1.00000 0.46541 0.34194 -0.28257 -O.21255 0.2232 0.0066 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
REQESTHE 0.10544 -0.04794 -0.22170 0.39573 0.73694 0.34977 0.52006 0.43716 0.46541 1.00000 0.45088 -O.39833 -0.24221 0.0243 0.3070 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
REFUSDEM 0.07232 -O.01052 -0.33034 0.42390 0.53087 0.41379 0.58229 0.38552 O.34194 0.45088 1.OOOOO -0.45013 -O.47325 0.1230 0.8228 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
CONFLAVO -0.50682 -0.29163 0.07215 -0.62704 -0.44407 -0.53283 -O.62403 -0.74824 -O.28257 -O.39833 -O.45013 1.OOOOO 0.39074 0.0001 0.0001 O.1239 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
DEPENDCY 0.02318 -0.04615 0.43729 -0.29864 -0.40091 -0.35805 -0.43879 -0.28841 -O.21255 -0.24221 -O.47325 0.39074 1.00000 0.6215 0.3254 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0-0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
SHY 0.02004 0.06349 0.33438 -0.56817 -O.51634 -0.60338 -O.44231 -O.36824 -O.45522 -0.33832 -0.33583 0.31878 0.'l8147 0.6695 O.1759 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0-0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
ASSAULT O.47202 O.68687 0.30669 0.20591 -O.02743 0.09218 0.16370 O.15020 -O.10849 -0.00721 0.00095 -0.34696 -0.03127 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.5591 0.0491 0.0004 0.0013 0.0205 0.8779 0.9839 0.0001 0.5054 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
INDIRHOS 0.33062 0.31252 0.34379 0.01882 -O.12896 -0.08154 -0.05492 0.03786 -0.09075 -0.06484 -O.07903 -0.09003 0.27426 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.6885 0.0058 0.0820 0.2419 0.4199 0.0528 0.1669 0.0919 0.0547 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
IRRITBLE 0.39781 0.27162 0.60053 -0.06482 -0.28663 -0.21270 -0.16445 -0.07238 -0.22757 -0.11353 -O.18251 -O.01740 O.39487 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.1670 0.0001 0.0001 0.0004 O.1227 0.0001 0.0153 0.0001 0.7110 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
NEGATIVE O.34983 O.31096 0.45650 0.09079 -0.06879 -0.03761 0.05540 0.03994 -O.11678 -0.04812 -0.03804 -O.10932 O.13559 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0527 0.1425 0.4230 0.2377 0.3948 0.0126 0.3052 0.4177 0.0195 0.0037 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
RESENT 0.31945 0.29523 O.65678 -0.12370 -0.39261 -0.24551 -0.27940 -O.16573 -O.33443 -O.23108 -0.27098 0.11218 0.39349 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0082 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0165 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
SUSPICIN O.34277 O.28744 O.66270 -0.12489 -0.39948 -0.23764 -0.27658 -0.11082 -O.32314 -O.19004 -0.27770 0.07733 O.36535 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0076 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0179 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0965 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 SAS
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUWER OF OBSERVATIONS
VERBALAG PHYSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS OEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REQESTHE REFUSOEH CONFLAVO OEPENDCY
VERBLHOS O.61920 0.42908 0.28379- 0.46835 0.18035 0.31094 0.39076 0.40297 0.10185 0.21512 0.18762 -0.58185 -0.05564 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0297 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.2357 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
GUILT 0.00909 -0.00588 0.36222 -0.24913 -0.43691 -0.24111 -0.41364 -0.28966 -0.30608 -0.29663 -0.34750 0.30957 0.49580 0.8464 0.9004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
TOTLHOST 0.57214 0.51977 0.70884 0.06261 -0.29478 -0.10982 -0.09636 0.01717 -0.26598 -0.13029 -0.18676 -0.15433 0.37370 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.1820 0.0001 0.0190 0.0397 0.7146 0.0001 0.0053 0.0001 0.0009 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
0IM1 0.79282 O.77338 0.48138 0.30099 -0.03082 0.09187 0.16369 0.16561 -O.12129 0.02812 0.02161 -0.38219 0.01475 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.5116 0.0499 0.0004 0.0004 0.0095 0.5491 0.6453 0.0001 0.7535 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
0IM2 0.62257 0.50533 0.56237 0.18313 -0.14554 -0.01987 0.07618 0.21168 -0.15777 0.00626 -0.04450 -O.37612 O.22083 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0018 0.6722 0.1042 0.0001 0.0007 0.8940 0.3430 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
0IM3 0.45479 0.38723 0.84464 -0.11084 -0.45577 -O.27083 -0.27807 -0.15690 -0.38760 -0.25303 -O.32375 0.04626 0.43847 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0179 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0008 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.3243 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
FACTOR1 0.66837 0.70116 0.27595 0.35240 0.10585 O. 18312 0.25379 0.17339 -0.01729 0.08956 0.10515 -0.36561 -0.13807 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0238 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.7127 0.0560 0.0247 0.0001 0.0031 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
FACTORS 0.49027 0.33755 O.30154 O.22583 -O.00078 O.08365 0.16963 0.33790 -0.01460 0.11156 O.06563 -0.46978 0.12649 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.9867 0.0743 0.0003 0.0001 0.7558 0.0172 0.1618 0.0001 0.0068 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
FACTORS O.16745 O.13421 0.78889 -O.32284 -0.54278 -O.40922 -O.46767 -0.35664 -0.42774 -0.34712 -0.41234 0.35035 0.51265 0.0003 0.0041 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
SHY ASSAULT INDIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST DIM1 0IM2 DIM3
ID -0.02993 -O.03224 -0.00394 0.02438 -0.01283 -0.06791 -0.03035 0.02223 -O.02004 -0.02125 -0.01546 0.01543 -0.01930 0.5239 0.4922 0.9332 0.6035 0.7847 0.1477 0.5180 0.6358 0.6696 0.6508 0.7419 0.7425 0.6811 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
GRADE 0.00160 0.05464 -O.11129 -0.11178 0.00955 -0.07680 -0.13166 0.07340 -0.23345 -0.09921 O.06307 -O.03742 -O.12432 0.9730 0.2474 0.0182 0.0177 0.8399 O.1037 0.0052 0.1200 0.0001 0.0354 0.1817 0.4284 0.0083 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450
SEX 0.00074 0.36143 -0.05779 -0.09537 0.07374 -0.01028 -0.13136 0.20368 -O.14317 O.05146 O.36756 0.05088 -O.05299 0.9875 0.0001 0.2186 0.0420 O. 1163 0.8268 0.0050 0.0001 0.0022 0.2733 0.0001 0.2788 0.2593 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455
RACE 0.14778 0.06902 -0.01086 0.02769 0.14335 0.00433 0.11143 0.02151 0.09228 0.08212 O.06524 0.08305 0. 11169 0.0016 O.1416 0.8173 0.5558 0.0022 0.9266 0.0174 0.6473 0.0492 0.0801 0.1648 0.0768 0.0172 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROS > |R| UNDER HO:RH0=O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
SHY ASSAULT IWIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPK VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST DIM1 DIM2 DIM3
AGE -0.03012 0.04201 O.00332 O.04745 -0.09581 0.01206 0.07776 0.02703 -0.01494 0.5216 0.3713 0.9437 0.4332 0.0790 0.7053 0.2178 0.3125 0.0411 0.7975 0.0976 0.5652 0.7506 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455
MARITAL O.05046 0.06390 0.01268 0.04679 0.00261 0.00945 0.05S99 O.06559 -0.00508 0.2828 0.1736 0.7874 0.7993 0.6848 O.1764 0.2082 0.3193 0.9558 0.8406 0.2332 0.1625 0.9139 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455
OADEO -0.03962 -0.03937 0.07333 0.00682 -0.00986 -0.01305 -0.00303 0.02923 -0.01352 0.3991 0.4021 O.1183 0.7906 0.6651 0.2506 0.4494 0.8847 0.8339 0.7813 0.9485 0.5340 0.7736 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455
MOMED -0.04135 0.00938 -0.03839 -O.06318 -0.01586 -0.00066 -0.01957 -0.00034 0.3789 0.8418 0.4140 0.7582 0.3798 0.6627 0.4260 0.6476 0.1785 0.7358 0.9887 0.6772 0.9943 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455
HOME 0.06264 0.05178 -0.02197 0.03846 0.01699 0.02181 -0.02505 0.01482 O. 1842 0.2725 0.6417 0.8040 0.9378 0.9420 0.7488 0.8666 0.4152 0.7190 0.6441 0.5957 0.7536 451 451 4SI 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451 451
PLACE -0.05598 -0.04774 -0.00661 0.08253 -O.02393 -0.04817 -0.01441 0.00078 0.2339 0.3101 0.8882 0.6758 0.0431 0.7878 0.3592 0.5454 0.0790 0.6111 0.3058 0.7S95 0.9868 N3 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 454 W
RSA -0.23353 -0.17935 0.03174 0.11032 -0.14304 -0.38324 -0.14418 -O.14498 0.0001 0.0001 0.4994 0.0075 0.0001 0.0003 O.1087 0.0036 0.0186 0.0022 0.0001 0.0020 0.0019 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455
RSB -0.43537 O.24609 0.01338 0.07607 -0.12732 -0.05710 0.41461 -O.19619 0.07313 0.25803 O.17135 -O.08819 0.0001 0.0001 0.7760 0.0501 0.1051 0.0065 0.2242 0.0001 0.0001 0.1193 0.0001 0.0002 0.0602 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455
STASS O.19896 0.20502 0.23615 0.19001 O.33155 O.34150 0.10667 O.20212 O.37827 O.23459 0.36260 0.44755 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0227 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
STAST O.21474 0.43335 0.43104 0.34614 0.52520 0.48S40 O.41691 O.32405 O.71277 0.50615 O.85892 0.83695 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
AXOUT 0.04000 0.46795 0.39415 0.29681 O.35107 0.33576 0.59002 0.13920 0.61103 O.54624 O.82381 O.52812 0.3941 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0029 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
AXIN 0.36733 O.10399 0.27036 O.20B26 O.39600 0.36750 -0.04374 0.34511 0.39548 0.20284 0.23071 0.62815 0.0001 0.0264 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.3514 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 AXCON -0.11011 -O.33471 -0.37690 -0.47207 -0.21939 -0.35940 -O.29061 O.39833 -O.11907 -0.51588 -0.40951 -O.77010 -0.49229 0.0187 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0109 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 SAS
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO:RHO= O / NUI«ER OF OBSERVATIONS
SHY ASSAULT INDIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST DIM1 0IH2 DIM3
AXEX O.24189 0.42044 O.48708 0.63766 0.33523 0.51695 0.46151 0.43805 O.53773 O.85645 O.76715 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
BDl 0.32921 0.09653 0.20603 0.19877 0.43046 0.42185 O.13846 O.35688 O.57319 0.0001 0.0394 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0-0001 0.0001 0.1197 0.0001 0.0001 0.0030 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
DENIAL O.00997 -0.16645 -0.34690 -0.16946 -0.26936 -0.27557 -0.33992 -0.39419 -O.37926 0.8319 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0014 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
INFREO 0.18521 0.38691 0.20305 0.37326 0.34192 0.29788 0.58095 0.43644 0.41956 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0213 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
IMPRESS -O.16424 -0.15999 -O.41364 -0.31099 -O.40048 -O.43214 -O.35348 -0.53941 -O.56778 0.0004 0.0006 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
AGGRESS 0.14851 O.52568 O.32468 0.40821 O.38015 0.40235 0.91207 0.58062 0.53174 0.0015 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.4037 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 5 3
HOSTILST 0.04179 0.59125 0.31492 0.37769 0.32756 O.32444 0.94261 0.54109 0.46733 2 0.3733 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.5943 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
ANGEREX 0.07641 0.50927 0.53382 0.30699 0.38773 0.40985 0.63870 0.87040 0.61420 0.1032 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
DISREGD 0.07961 0.46983 0.15258 0.38713 0.31307 0.30880 0.78246 0.43530 O.42198 O.OB95 0.0001 0.0011 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.4390 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
VERBALAG 0.02004 0.47202 O.33062 0.34983 0.31945 0.34277 0.79282 0.62257 0.45479 0.6695 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.8464 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
PHYSAGG 0.06349 0.68687 O.31252 0.31096 0.29523 0.28744 0.42908 O.77338 0.50533 0.38723 O.1759 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.9004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
PASSIVAG 0.33438 O.30669 O.34379 O.45650 0.65678 0.66270 O.48138 O.56237 0.84464 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
ASSERT -O.56817 0.20591 0.01882 -0.06482 0.09079 -0.12370 -0.12489 0.46835 -0.24913 0.06261 0.30099 0.18313 -0.11084 0.0001 0.0001 0.6885 O.1670 0.0527 0.0082 0.0076 0.0001 0.0001 O.1820 0.0001 0.0001 0.0179 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
SHY ASSAULT INOIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST OIMl DIM2 0IM3
SELFCONF -0.51634 -0.02743 -0.12896 -0.28663 -0.06879 -0.39261 -0.39948 0.18035 -0.43631 -O.23478 -0.03082 -0.14554 -0.45S77 0.0001 0.5591 0.0058 0.0001 O.1425 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.5116 0.0018 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
INITASS -0.60338 0.09218 -0.08154 -0.21270 -0.03761 -0.24551 -0.23764 0.31094 -O.24111 -0.10982 O.03187 -0.01387 -0.27083 0.0001 0.0491 0.0820 0.0001 0.4230 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0190 0.0499 0.6722 O.OOOl 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
DEFENASS -0.44231 0.16370 -0.05492 -0.16445 0.05540 -0.27940 -O.27658 O.39076 -O.41364 -O.09636 O.16369 O.07618 -0.27807 0.0001 0.0004 0.2419 0.0004 0.2377 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0397 0.0004 0.1042 O.OOOl 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
FRANK -0.3G824 O.15020 0.03786 -0.07238 0.03994 -0.16573 -O.11082 O.40297 -0.28966 0.01717 0.16561 0.21168 -0.15690 0.0001 0.0013 0.4199 0.1227 0.3948 0.0004 0.0179 0.0001 0.0001 0.7146 0.0004 O.OOOl 0.0008 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
PRAISE -O.45522 -O.10849 -0.09075 -O.22757 -0.11678 -0.33443 -0.32314 0.10185 -0.30608 -0.26598 -0.12129 -0.15777 -0.38760 0.0001 0.0205 0.0528 0.0001 0.0126 0.0001 . 0.0001 0.0297 0.0001 O.OOOl 0.0095 0.0007 O.OOOl 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
REQESTHE -0.33832 -0.00721 -0.06484 -0.11353 -0.04812 -0.23108 -0.19004 0.21512 -0.29663 -0.13029 0.02812 0.00626 -0.25303 0.0001 0.8779 0.1669 0.0153 0.3052 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0053 0.5491 0.8940 0.0001 ro 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 w
REFUSDEM -O.33583 O.00035 -0.07903 -0.18251 -0.03804 -0.27098 -0.27770 0.18762 -O.34750 -0.18676 0.02161 -0.04450 -0.32375 0.0001 0.9839 0.0919 0.0001 0.4177 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl 0.6453 0.3430 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
CONFLAVO 0.31878 -0.34696 -0.09003 -0.01740 -0.10932 0.11218 0.07793 -0.58185 0.30957 -O.15433 -0.38219 -O.37612 O.04626 0.0001 0.0001 0.0547 0.7110 0.0195 0.0165 0.0965 0.0001 0.0001 0.0009 O.OOOl 0.0001 0.3243 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
DEPENDCy 0. 18147 -0.03127 0.27426 0.39487 0.13559 O.39349 0.36535 -0.05564 0.49580 0.37370 0.01475 0.22083 O.43847 0.0001 0.50S4 0.0001 0.0001 0.0037 0.0001 0.0001 0.2357 0.0001 0.0001 0.7535 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
SHY 1.00000 0.07341 0.08545 0.30199 0.16636 0.30776 O.30354 -O.14009 O.24627 0.25056 0.08746 O. 11840 O.37971 O.OOOO 0.1175 0.0683 0.0001 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0027 0.0001 0.0001 0.0620 0.0114 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
ASSAULT 0.07341 1.00000 O.30647 O.31238 O.32223 0.25020 0.22801 0.48390 0.02535 0.53955 O.72327 O.53947 0.38188 0.1175 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.5893 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl 456 456 456 456 456 436 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
INOIRHOS 0.08545 0.30647 1.OOOOO O.49625 O.25522 0.30417 O.26992 0.33026 0.22970 0.61812 O.35427 0.58596 O.46549 0.0683 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
IRRITBLE 0.30199 0.31238 0.49625 1.OOOOO O.41471 O.56593 O.50955 O.34514 0.39050 0.79316 0.43593 0.64383 0.78654 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 O.OOQI 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
SHY ASSAULT INDIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST 0IM1 DIM2 DIM3
NEGATIVE O. 16636 0.32223 0.25522 0.41471 1.00000 0.33294 0.35826 0.31975 0.12272 O.55713 0.43222 0.37341 O.45534 G.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.0087 0.0001 O.OOOl 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
RESENT 0.30776 O.25020 0.30417 0.56593 0.33294 1.00000 0.60855 0.22777 0.41062 0.71707 0.38063 0.49286 O.75363 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOO O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.0001 O.OOOl 0.0001 O.OOOl 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
SUSPICIN 0.30954 0.22801 0.26992 0.50955 0.35826 0.60855 1.00000 0.22333 0.42381 O.70302 O.38384 0.4S970 O.72898 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOO O.OOOl 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
VERBLHOS -0.14009 0.48990 0.33026 0.34514 0.31975 0.22777 0.22333 1.00000 -0.02902 0.60532 0.57505 0.66489 O.33645 0.0027 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.0001 0.0000 0.5365 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
GUILT 0.24627 0.02535 O.22970 0.39050 0.12272 0.41062 0.42381 -0.02902 1.OOOOO O.49583 0.00236 O.23244 O.46286 0.0001 0.5893 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOB7 O.OOOl 0.0001 0.5365 0.0000 0.0001 0.9599 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 . 456 456 456 456 456
TOTLHOST O.25056 0.59955 0.61812 0.79316 0.55713 0.71707 0.70302 0.60532 0.49583 1.OOOOO o.65912 O.80089 O.85186 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
DIM1 0.08746 0.72927 0.35427 0.43593 0.43222 0.38063 0.38384 O.57505 0.00236 O.65912 1.OOOOO 0.64424 0.53516 0.0620 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.9599 0.0001 0.0000 O.OOOl O.OOOl 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
0IM2 0. 11840 0.53947 0.58596 0.64983 O.37341 O.49286 0.45970 O.66489 O.23244 O.80089 0.64424 1.00000 0.75348 0.0114 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOO O.OOOl 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
DIM3 0.37971 0.38188 0.46549 0.78654 0.45534 O.75363 O.72898 O.33645 0.46286 0.85186 0.53516 0.75348 1.00000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOO 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
FACTOR1 -0.01240 0.63247 O.12221 O.16499 O.36545 0.16617 0.19825 0.47168 -O.16547 0.39411 0.92900 0.35611 0.25376 0.7918 0.0001 0.0090 0.0004 0.0001 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0004 O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.0001 O.OOOl 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
FACT0R2 -0.02250 0.43365 O.56754 O.49706 0.18345 O.25659 0.20712 0.65636 0.15124 0.60592 O.35552 O.88054 0.46054 0.6318 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.0012 O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456
FACT0R3 0.45700 0.07107 O.32346 0.69076 O.42243 0.78501 0.77202 -0.01355 0.52088 0.67315 0.25094 O.38508 O.86874 0.0001 0.1297 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.7729 O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 FACTOR1 FACT0R2 FACT0R3
10 -0.02519 0.05788 -0.04285 0.5916 0.2174 0.3613 456 456 456 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO;RH0=O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS FACTOR1 FACTQR2 FACTORS
GRADE O.12296 -O.03469 -O.16509 0.0090 0.4630 0.0004 450 450 450
SEX 0.43862 -0.00381 -0.19473 0.0001 0.9355 0.0001 455 455 455
RACE 0.05830 0.02238 0.09119 0.2146 0.6340 0.0519 455 455 455
AGE 0.09101 0.02802 -0.03824 0.0524 0.5510 0.4159 455 455 455
MARITAL 0.05081 0.07258 -0.06046 0.2794 0.1221 O.1980 455 455 455
OADED -0.01949 0.05831 -0.03203 0.6784 0.2144 0.4955 455 455 455
MOMED 0.00555 -0.02187 0.00346 0.9061 0.6417 0.9413 455 455 455
HOME 0.02540 -0.03803 0.01006 0.5905 0.4205 0.8313 451 451 451
PLACE -O.05460 O.00301 -0.00481 0.2456 0.9490 0.9186 454 454 454
RSA -O.39954 0.02096 -0.10779 0.0001 0.6557 0.0215 455 455 455
RSB 0.29960 O.21214 -O.28711 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 455 455 455
STASS 0.08957 0.25143 0.36853 0.0560 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
STAST 0.23650 0.64307 0.54023 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
FACTOR1 FACT0R2 FACTORS
AXOUT 0.33719 O.78358 0.18890 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
AXIN 0.06195 -0.00315 0.65006 0.1867 0.9465 0.0001 456 456 456
AXCON -0.16578 -O.70888 -0.24925 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
AXEX 0.25762 0.70084 0.50649 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
BOI -0.03662 0.21308 0.56235 0.4353 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
DENIAL -0.21529 -0.28534 -0.28624 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
INFREO 0.49847 O.25461 0.25980 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
IMPRESS -O.15269 -0.42352 -O.46474 0.0011 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
AGGRESS O.84101 0.27065 O.32548 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
HOSTILST 0.91801 O.22385 O.23323 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
ANGEREX O.39645 0.80015 0.28072 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
DISREGD 0.80308 0.08847 0.26309 0.0001 0.0591 0.0001 456 456 456
VERBALAG 0.66837 0.49027 O.16745 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 456 456 456 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROS > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / MJMBER OF OBSERVATIONS FACTOR1 FACT0R2 FACT0R3
PHYSAGG 0.7011G 0.33755 0.13421 0.0001 0.0001 0.0041 456 456 456
PASSIVAG 0.27595 0.30154 0.78889 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
ASSERT O.35240 O.22583 -0.32284 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
SELFCONF 0.10585 -0.00078 -0.54278 0.0238 0.9867 0.0001 456 456 456
INITASS 0.18312 0.08365 -0.40922 0.0001 0.0743 0.0001 456 456 456
DEFENASS 0.25379 0.16963 -0.46767 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 456 456 456
FRANK 0.17339 0.33790 -0.35664 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
PRAISE -0.01729 -0.01460 -0.42774 0.7127 0.7558 0.0001 456 456 456
PEOESTHE 0.08956 0.11156 -0.34712 0.0560 0.0172 0.0001 456 456 456
REFUSDEM O.10515 0.06563 -O.41234 0.0247 0. 1618 0.0001 456 456 456
CONFLAVD -O.36561 -O.46978 0.35035 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
OEPENDCY -0.13807 0.12649 0.51265 0.0031 0.0068 0.0001 456 456 456
SHY -0.01240 -0.02250 O.45700 0.7918 0.6318 0.0001 456 456 456 SAS
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RHQ=O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
FACTOR1 FACTORS FACTORS
ASSAULT 0.63247 0.43365 0.07107 0.0001 0.0001 O.1297 456 456 456
INOIRHOS 0.12221 0.56754 0.32346 0.0090 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
IRRITBLE 0.16499 0.49706 0.69076 . 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
NEGATIVE O.36545 0.18345 0.42243 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
RESENT O.16617 0.25659 0.78501 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
SUSPICIN O.19825 0.20712 0.77202 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
VERBLHOS O.47168 O.65636 -0.013S5 0.0001 0.0001 0.7729 456 456 456
.GUILT -0.16547 0.15124 0.52088 0.0004 0.0012 0.0001 456 456 456
TOTLHOST 0.39411 0.60592 O.67315 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
DIM1 O.92900 0.35552 O.25094 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
DIM2 0.35611 0.88054 0.38508 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
DIM3 0.25376 0.46054 0.86874 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456
FACTOR1 1.00000 0.06384 O.03310 O.OOOO 0.1736 0.4808 456 456 456 SAS
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS FACTOR1 FACT0R2 FACTORS
FACT0R2 0.06384 1.OOOOO 0.07555 O.1736 0.0000 O.1071 456 456 456
FACTORS 0.03310 0.07555 1.00000 0.4808 0.1071 O.OOOO 456 456 456 243
APPENDIX E.
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN THE MEANS FOR THE CLUSTERING VARIABLES 244
Significant Differences In the Means for the Clustering Variables
Cluster Mean Code
Femininity
4 5.57 A 5 5.54 A 1 5.30 B 3 5.14 B 2 4.89 C
Masculinity
2 5.50 A 3 5.29 A 4 4.94 B 5 4.77 B 1 4.46 C
State Anger
5 24.39 A 2 24.33 A 1 19.81 B 3 19.39 BC 4 17.32 C
5 12.81 A 2 9.57 B 1 8.76 B 3 5.90 C 4 4.21 C 245
Cluster Mean Code
Denial
4 2.62 A 1 2.09 B 3 2.08 B 5 1.64 BC 2 1.33 C
Infrequency
2 2.71 A 3 1.71 B 5 1.47 B 1 0.93 C 4 0.64 C
Impression Management
4 14.57 A 3 13.16 B 1 12.50 B 5 10.03 C 2 9.08 C
Assertlveness
2 16.65 A 3 16.25 A 4 13.78 B 5 12.38 C 1 11.31 C
Self-GonfIdence
4 12.12 A 3 11.76 A 2 10.16 B 1 8.90 C 5 8.40 C 246
Cluster Mean Code
Initiating Assertlveness
3 11.26 A 2 10.37 A 4 10.14 A 5 7.78 B 1 7.04 B
Defending Assertlveness
2 14.47 A 3 14.39 A 4 13.92 A 5 11.19 B 1 10.90 B
Frankness
2 8.27 A 3 7.72 A 4 7.52 A 5 6.71 B 1 5.30 C
Giving and Receiving Praise
4 6.52 A 3 6.05 A 2 5.08 B 1 5.05 B 5 4.77 B
Requesting Help
4 5.79 A 3 5.61 A 2 5.31 A 5 4.68 B 1 4.57 B 247
Cluster Mean Code
Refusing Demands
4 4.52 A 3 4.47 A 2 4.24 A 1 3.43 B 5 3.40 B
Conflict Avoidance
1 13.90 A 5 10.85 B 4 10.44 B 3 7.98 C 2 6.43 D
Dependency
5 14.42 A 1 13.10 A 2 11.67 B 4 9.76 C 3 9.40 C
Shyness
1 8.74 A 5 8.36 A 2 7.45 A 3 5.63 B 4 4.71 B
Negatlveness
2 3.18 A 5 2.63 B 1 2.36 BC 3 2.16 C 4 1.47 D 248
Cluster Mean Code
Guilt
5 5.88 A 1 5.42 A 2 4.61 B 4 3.80 C 3 3.70 C
Total Hostility
2 48.53 A 5 44.15 B 1 34.77 C 3 33.64 C 4 23.75 D
Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at 2 < .05.