awareness and expression of anger was observed. The AEAI is unique in its use of a single vignette, a very small
sample, and partly qualitative analyses of data. The last of these makes the AEAI worthy of consideration as an
adjunct to the standard quantitative rating scales used in anger assessment. The sole item consists of a hypotheti-
cal vignette as follows: ‘You have a regular arrangement with a friend to pick you up every morning at 08:15 to
go to work. He arrives at 08:35 a.m.’ (Catchlove & Braha, p. 114).
The Standardized Experience of Anger Measure (STEAM; Linden et al., 1997 ) was developed by Linden et al.
(1997) a measure of situation-specific anger who pointed out that the STAXI and most measures of anger opera-
tionalize anger as a trait construct. The authors of the STEAM generated a pool of 54 vignettes that contained at
least two of the following theorized components of anger: damage, intent, and preventability. Individuals
employed a 10 cm visual analogue scale to rate each vignette in terms of (i) degree of anger aroused by the
described situation; (ii) suitability of the vignette for different populations; and (iii) clarity of the vignette. Setting
high cutoffs on each of these criteria, a total of 12 vignettes emerged as usable for both students and the general
community. Thirty-one fellow students, friends, and family members comprised the sample used in this study.
Cronbach alpha coefficients were found to be 0.89 for college students and 0.88 in a community sample.
Test/C0retest reliability at one-month was found to be 0.83. Although significant, correlations were low between
the STEAM and the trait anger and anger-out scores on the Spielberger STAXI/STAXI-2 scales. This suggests that
the former is measuring something slightly different from the latter. The STEAM makes a good attempt to orga-
nize vignettes according to attributional theories of anger. It has acceptable reliability though factorial validity
remains to be evaluated. An example of the 12 vignettes is:
‘Your friends ask you to babysit their 10-year-old child for the evening. You have an important report for work that must be
completed by morning, so you will need quiet time to work while the child is sleeping. You try to explain this to the child, but s/he
continues to be loud and disruptive well beyond his/her normal bedtime. How anger-arousing is this situation?’
The Anger Control Inventory (ACI; Hoshmand & Austin, 1987 ) is based on a model of cognitive-behavioral and
person-situation interactions. This inventory began with 134 items, organized into 10 anger stimulus scales and six
anger response scales. Item retention was based on inter-judge agreement. The stimulus scales comprised (i) seeing
others abused, (ii) intrusion, (iii) personal devaluation, (iv) betrayal of trust, (v) minor nuisance, (vi) external control
and coercion, (vii) verbal abuse, (viii) physical abuse, (ix) unfair treatment, and (x) goal-blocking. The response scales
were (i) behavioral which was further differentiated into destructive or passive responding versus constructive or
assertive responding, (ii) cognitive which was differentiated into maladaptive cognition and cognitive skill deficit,
and (iii) arousal differentiated into duration and intensity. Two samples of 118 clinical clients and 190 undergraduate
students were used in the initial studies, respectively. Hoshmand, Austin, and Appell (1981) reported Cronbach
alpha coefficients (ranging from .54 to .81) for the stimulus scales and .76 to .89 for the response scales. One-month
retest reliability ranged from (.72 to .83) for the stimulus scales and (.73 to .83) for the response scales. When normals
were compared with batterers seeking treatment, significant differences appeared in the expected direction for four
of the stimulus scales and five of the response scales. Factor analysis of the 16 scales lent support to the presence of
an Anger Stimulus and an Anger Response Scale ( Hoshmand & Austin, 1987 ). For a sample of patients, therapist rat-
ings of anger difficulties were significant but low-to-moderate in their correlation with stimulus scales or response
scales. However, this issue of criterion validity is an important one that has been largely neglected in the anger assess-
ment literature. This inventory is well-conceived in terms of its broad division between stimulus and response scales,
and the further subdivision of the former into common types of anger elicitors.
The Anger Discomfort Scale (ADS; Sharkin & Gelso, 1991 )shares the same acronym as the Anger Disorders
Scale, but assesses something quite different: a person’s degree of intrapersonal and interpersonal discomfort
with anger. In that sense, it is associated with anger suppression. Respondents simply rate each of the 15 items
on a 4-point response scale ranging from ‘Almost never’ to ‘Almost always’. The ADS was administered to 150
undergraduates and was found to exhibit a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .81 and a test /C0retest reliability coeffi-
cient of .87. ADS scores correlated significantly and mostly with anger-in, less so with anger-out, and negatively
with anger control on the STAXI/STAXI-2. A principal axis factor analysis led to retention of four factors labeled:
intrapersonal discomfort with one’s own anger, positive views of anger, interpersonal discomfort with anger, and
perceived concomitants of anger. Koo and Park (1998, p. 60), reported that when the ADS was administered to
male and female counselor trainees, high scores were predictive of state anxiety. The ADS can be a particularly
useful tool in screening participants for readiness and motivation to enter into anger treatment programs. Here
are some examples of the 15 items making up the ADS: ‘I do not like it when I get angry’, ‘I believe that it is nat-
ural and healthy to feel angry’, ‘I create more problems for myself when I get angry’.93 MEASURES REVIEWED BRIEFLY
II. EMOTIONAL DISPOSITIONS