also reported that the Spielberger STAI A-Trait scale correlated positively with MAI Anger-arousal (.54), with
MAI Anger-in (.54), with Anger-eliciting situations (.29), and with Hostile outlook (.26), respectively. Also, the
MAI Range of anger-eliciting situations correlated positively (.59) with the conceptually similar NAS items.
Divergent/Discriminant
As evidence of divergent/discriminant validity, Siegel (1986) reported negligible or negative correlations
between the MAI Anger-out component, and other measures of anger, as follows: Harburg Duration (.06),
Harburg Magnitude (.09), Novaco Magnitude (.06), Novaco Situations (.07), BDHI Hostility ( /C0.03), Harburg
Anger-in ( /C0.10), and Harburg Anger-out (.20), respectively. In addition, Riley and Treiber (1989) , reported that
the MAI Anger-out/Brooding scale which ‘assesses overt expression of anger combined with feelings of guilt
and brooding related to the response’ (p. 400) correlated negatively ( /C0.46) with the Framingham Anger-in mea-
sures of anger suppression.
Construct/Factor Analytic
As evidence of construct/factor analytic validity, Siegel (1986) carried out a principal components analysis
with varimax rotation on the MAI item intercorrelations in two samples ( Ns5198 and 288). For the college sam-
ple, three components were extracted and labeled: Anger-arousal (64% of the variance), Range of anger-eliciting
situations (24% of variance), and Hostile outlook (12% of variance). For the combined sample ( N5486), no fewer
than five separate components emerged and were labeled as follows: Anger-arousal (comprising: frequency, mag-
nitude, and duration of responses), Range of anger-eliciting situations, Hostile outlook, Anger-in, and Anger-out,
respectively. In a study of four well-established anger/hostility scales (BDHI, ASR, NAS, and MAI), Musante
et al. (1989) carried out a second-order principal components analysis with varimax rotation ( N5132) of the
21321 subscale intercorrelations. Although five components exhibited eigenvalues greater than 1.0, on the basis
of the Scree test ( Cattell, 1978; Cattell & Vogelmann, 1977 ), Musante et al. chose to extract only three higher-order
components that were labeled: Experience of Anger (‘representing anger-arousing and -eliciting situations and
anger awareness’); Expression of Anger (‘either physical assault or verbal expression of anger’) and Suspicion-
Guilt (‘suspicion, mistrust-suspicion, and guilt’), respectively. Riley and Treiber (1989) found that they were
unable to replicate the multi-factorial structure put forward by Siegel (1986) . Likewise, Kroner et al. (1992) also
investigated the factor structure of the MAI in a sample of 372 violent male prisoners, but claimed support for
only a two-factor structure, despite the previously demonstrated and cross-validated multidimensionality of the
MAI measure. Kneip et al. (1993) using a sample of coronary heart disease patients, reported a two-factor struc-
ture for the MAI. Using a large Finnish sample, Miller, Jenkins, Kaplan, and Salonen (1995) reported the results
of a CFA that supported the MAI rationally devised dimensions rather than the claimed multifactorial structure.
However, Dutton (1995) found support for the following MAI subscales: Anger-in, Anger-out, Magnitude of
anger, and Frequency of anger.
Criterion/Predictive
As evidence of criterion/predictive validity, the MAI Hostile Outlook scale correlated positively (.46) with the
sum of the BDHI Negativism, Resentment, and Suspicion scales ( Siegel, 1985 ).Musante et al. (1989) reported that
scores on the Structured Interview (SI) Potential for Hostility were significantly predicted by MAI Anger-Arousal
(.34), MAI Hostile outlook (.25), and MAI Range of eliciting conditions (.33), respectively (the predictive correla-
tions for MAI Anger-in and Anger-out were quite low, being .14 and 18, respectively).
Location
Siegel, J.M. (1985). The measurement of anger as a multidimensional construct. In M.A. Chesney & R.H.
Rosenman (Eds.), Anger and hostility in cardiovascular and behavioural disorders (pp. 59 /C081). New York:
Hemisphere/McGraw-Hill.
Siegel, J.M. (1986). The multidimensional anger inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 ,
191/C0200.
Results and Comments
Siegel (1986) obtained virtually identical factor structures across two different samples, thereby providing
cross-validational evidence of the multidimensional structure of the MAI measure. Subsequently, Musante et al.
(1989) concluded that these anger measures reflect emotional, interpersonal, and attitudinal components, which
can be defined in terms of an experiential anger dimension, an anger expression dimension, and a hostile or88 4. ANGER/HOSTILITY MEASURES
II. EMOTIONAL DISPOSITIONS