Construct/Factor Analytic
As evidence of construct/factor analytic validity, a principal axis factor analysis ( N5275) with varimax rota-
tion of the inter-correlations of the 76 items with factor extraction number based on the eigenvalues greater than
1.0 criterion produced 10 factors, as listed above ( Evans & Stangeland, 1971 ). In the subsequent development
of a Korean version of the RI ( Cho et al., 2009 ), four higher-order factors were extracted and labeled:
Unpredictable disruptions and Disturbances, Embarrassing circumstances, Personal disrespect, and Unpleasant
encounters, respectively. Clearly, there is a multitude of situations that have the potential to provoke anger, as
recognized in the multidimensional structuring of the RI.
Criterion/Predictive
In a Korean study ( Baeg et al., 2011 ), depressive symptomatology among the elderly was positively predicted
by the RI anger factors with the sole exception of the factor labeled Unpleasant Encounters. Thus, ‘the more severe
the depressive symptoms ...the more severe the anger reaction to unpredictable disruption and disturbances,
embarrassing situations, and personal disrespected factor scores on the RI were ( p,.05)’ (Baeg et al., p. 189).
Location
Evans, D.R., & Stangeland, M. (1971). Development of the Reaction Inventory to measure anger. Psychological
Reports, 29 , 412/C0414.
Cho Y.W., Kim J.L., Kim S.Y., Wang S.K., & Chee I.S. (2009). A standardization of the Korean version of the
Reaction Inventory. Journal of the Korean Society for Biological Therapies in Psychiatry, 15 , 130/C0139.
Results and Comments
The stability of the RI over various periods of time needs to be investigated further. Also, although mere imagina-
tion of the provocative scenarios included in the RI has the potential to evoke anger, that would depend on the
degree of absorption into the imagined situations. Moreover, hypothetical provocation scenarios of the kind
included in measures such as the RI or NAS-PI, run the risk of being over-specific and may provide an anger trigger
for only a small fraction of the population. If so, this would limit the relevance of the items across respondents.
RI SAMPLE ITEMS
1.The telephone or doorbell ringing when you are busy
at something.
2.Phoney people.
3.Running out of gas.4.Having to take orders.
Note. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale rang-
ing from: 1 5Not at all to 55Very much .
Novaco Anger Scale and Provocation Inventory (NAS-PI)
(Novaco, 1994, 2003 ).
Variable
Anger disposition has been conceptualized as consisting of distinct cognitive, arousal, and behavioral compo-
nents ( Novaco, 1975 ). On the other hand, certain anger-eliciting situations can lead to the arousal of anger in
response to such provocation ( Novaco, 1994 ).
Description
The Novaco Anger Scale (NAS) was constructed by Novaco (1975) as a measure of anger reactions to various
provocations. It was revised by Novaco (1994) having 48 items relating to cognitive, behavioral, and arousal com-
ponents of anger (with the cognitive component comprising subscales of attentional focus, rumination, hostile
attitude, and suspicion). The PI comprises 25 hypothetical situations that are likely to provoke anger, distributed
across five subscales labeled: Disrespectful treatment, Unfairness/injustice, Frustration/interruptions, Annoying
traits, and Irritations. Further revisions of the NAS-PI have appeared, the most recent being the commercially
produced version ( Novaco, 2003 ).84 4. ANGER/HOSTILITY MEASURES
II. EMOTIONAL DISPOSITIONS