32 Primavera-verano 2013 Hypotheses of the State-Trait Anger Theory If trait anger describes a fundamental human characteristic, then high anger individuals should differ from low anger individuals in systematic ways. The state-trait anger theory (Deffenbacher et al., 1996; Spielberger, 1988, 1999) attempts to capture these differences and make a series of testable hypotheses or predictions about how high and low anger individuals should feel, think, and behave differently. If, as the state-trait theory of anger suggests, people differ on this fundamental dimension of anger proneness, then high anger and low anger individuals should differ in predictable ways. Specifically, compared to low-anger, high-anger individuals should: 1. Have their anger elicited or triggered by more situations (elicitation hypothesis); 2. Become angered more often (frequency hypothesis); 3. Become more intensely angered when angered (intensity hypothesis); 4. Experience anger for longer periods of time when angry (duration hypothesis); 5. Engage in more negative, angry review of or be more cognitively preoccupied with past or potential future mistreatment, injustice, disrespect, frustrations, and provocations (rumination hypothesis); 6. Experience greater anger as frustration/stress/provocation increase (person x situation interaction hypothesis); 7. Engage in more aggressive expression of anger because of more frequent, intense, and/or prolonged anger arousal and/or rumination (aggression hypothesis); 8. Cope with or handle their anger in less adaptive, constructive ways (positive and negative anger expression are not opposite ends of a continuum) (reduced positive coping hypothesis); and 9. Experience more frequent and/or more severe anger-related consequences because of their anger (negative consequence hypothesis). Evaluation of State Trait Theory In the remainder of the paper, we will provide research examples relevant to the predictions. Elicitation hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that more situations should trigger significant anger for the high anger individual. Compared to low anger, high anger college students reported that more than three times as many different potential provocations (e.g., being teased, forgetting one’s keys, being late, and the like) elicited much or very much anger (Deffenbacher et al., 1996). The same was true in the context of driving. High anger drivers reported approximately three-and-a-half times as many driving events triggered this level of anger (Deffenbacher, 2009). Frequency hypothesis. Because high trait anger reflects a greater propensity to experience anger, then high anger individuals should experience anger more frequently than low anger individuals. In fact, high anger individuals experience anger more often than their low anger counterparts. For instance, 33% of high anger persons reported that they become angry one or more times per day, and an additional 53% experienced anger a few days a week (Tafrate, Kassinove, & Dundin, 2002), whereas only 7% low-anger individuals reported these two frequencies. Additionally, in diary studies high anger individuals reported approximately becoming angry 2.5 to 3.0 times more often generally (Deffenbacher et al., 1996) and while driving (Deffenbacher, 2009). Intensity hypothesis. High trait anger reflects a tendency to respond with more intense anger when provoked. This hypothesis has received some of the strongest empirical support. Whether in survey, diary, or experimental studies, high anger persons report that, when provoked, experience more intense or higher levels of anger than do low anger individuals (Deffenbacher, 2009; Deffenbacher et al., 1996; Hazebroek, Howells, & Day, 2001; Spielberger, 1988, 1999). Even without provocation, high trait anger individuals sometimes report greater anger intensity than the low anger counterparts (Alcázar & Deffenbacher, in press). Duration hypothesis. Because high trait anger individuals keep thinking about provocative situations that produce anger (Wilkowski & Robinson, 2010), high anger individuals are more likely to continue thinking about what made them mad for hours or even days. The result is that they are more likely to maintain their feelings of anger for longer periods of time. Empirical evidence supports this notion. In a community sample Tafrate et al. (2002) found that the majority (54%) of anger episodes lasted less than an hour. However, nearly three times as many high anger participants (45%) reported their anger lasted more than a day compared to only 17% of low anger individuals. Rumination hypothesis. High trait anger usually involves permanent negative appraisals (Wilkowski & Robinson, 2010), suggesting that high anger is related to angry rumination (Borders, Earleywine, & Jajodia, 2010) and that high anger individuals engage in more negative, angry review of past or potential future mistreatment, injustice, disrespect, frustrations, and provocations. Again research findings support this supposition. Compared to low trait anger individuals, those with high trait anger keep in their mind what angered them and maintain their anger for hours (Alcázar, 2012). Moreover, when the high anger person is angry, he/she will try to maintain the anger even if others try to distract him/her. Person x situation interaction hypothesis. Traits are triggered by relevant situations in the environment. This hypothesis suggests that as frustration, provocation, and stress increase, so do anger and related responses. However,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTY4MjU3