anger coping styles and perceived social support

The Journal of Social Psychology, 1997, 137(4), 40541 1

Anger Coping Styles and Perceived Social Support

TIBOR P. PALFAI Center for Alcohol and Addictions Studies

Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island

KENNETH E. HART University of Wales, Swansea

Swansea, Wales, UK

ABSTRACT. This study was based on the hypothesis that perceived availability of social support, independent of the influence of social desirability, would be inversely related to both anger-in and anger-out coping styles. Participants were 101 college-aged Caucasians in the Northeast. In a regression analysis, the anger coping scales together accounted for 9% of the unique variance in total social support. Anger-in, but not anger-out, was a sig- nificant predictor of social support independent of the effects of social desirability. In addition, anger-in, independent of response bias, was inversely related to deficiencies in appraisal support, self-esteem support, tangible support, and belongingness support. These findings were interpreted in the context of the psychosocial vulnerability model of disease risk, which suggests that deficits in perceived social support may represent a diathesis for ill health among individuals exhibiting an anger-suppression coping style.

MOST RESEARCH ON social support is based on the assumption that social support as an independent variable in the social environment affects people’s physical and mental health in an antecedent-consequent linear fashion. Recently, an alternative model of support has been gaining acceptance; this model rejects the narrow view of level of support as an environmental provision independent of individual differences. In the emerging alternative model, social support is posited as a dependent variable with its own set of determinants and antecedent influences (Broadhead et al., 1984; Heller & Swindle, 1983; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Sarason & Sarason, 1985).

This shift toward the concept of social support as a dependent variable opens an important avenue for investigation of individual differences that might alter

Address correspondence to D,: Tibor Pulfai, Center for Alcohol and Addictions Studies, Box G-BH, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912.

405

406 The Journal of Social Psychology

the level of support available. Our major purpose was to extend and refine the body of knowledge about psychological factors that might contribute to participants perceived availability of social support. In particular, we investigated the anger coping styles of anger-in and anger-out.

The importance of understanding more about anger coping styles is under- scored by research linking anger-in (i.e., anger suppressiodinhibition) and anger-out (i.e., anger expression) to increased risk of premature death and dis- ability (Appel, Holroyd, & Gorkin, 1983; Holroyd & Gorkin, 1983; Johnson, 1990; Julius, Harburg, Cottington, & Johnston, 1986; Siegman, 1994; Thomas, 1989). To date, very little is known about the mechanisms of action whereby anger coping styles may translate into elevated rates of morbidity and mortality. However, a number of authors speculated that anger coping styles indirectly influence physical health by eroding the stress protective function of social support (Appel et al., 1983; Houston & Vavak, 1991; Siegel, 1992; Smith & Chris- tensen, 1992). Previous researchers suggested that habitual styles of coping with anger indeed have negative effects on social support resources. For example, black adolescents who score high on anger-in (a) have limited social networks and (b) perceive a lack of support during stressful periods in their lives (Johnson & Greene, 1991). In addition, a high level of anger-out among patients with pulmonary illness is associated with decreased social engagement among support providers (Lane & Hobfoll, 1992).

In the present study, we attempted to refine, replicate, and extend previous research linking anger coping styles to social support. In particular, by means of a regression model that statistically controlled for the influence of social desirability response set, we investigated anger coping among healthy college students. Our rationale for including social desirability as a control variable stemmed from earlier findings that social desirability is negatively correlated with anger coping style (Welte & Russell, 1993) and positively correlated with social support (Lakey, 1989). Finally, we employed a regression model that simultaneously examined the relative importance of both anger-in and anger-out as predictors of perceived social support. Thus, unlike other researchers (e.g., Engebretson, Mathews, & Scheier, 1989), we did not categorize people as either expressers (high on anger-out) or suppressors (high on anger-in). Our major prediction was that perceived social support would be inversely associated with both of the anger coping styles.

Method

Participants

Participants were 10 1 Caucasian college undergraduate volunteers enrolled in a private college in Long Island, New York. Mean age of participants, 80 men and 21 women, was 20.2 years.

Palfai & Hart 407

Measures

The Anger Expression Scale. The Anger Expression Scale (AX) is a 24-item questionnaire developed to measure characteristic styles of coping with anger arousal (AX; Spielberger et al., 1985; Spielberger, 1988). The AX includes two factorially independent subscales to measure the frequency with which people inhibit or express anger when they experience it. Participants respond to items by recalling their typical reactions when they are angry. The eight-item anger inhibition subscale assesses anger-in (AX-In). Sample items on the AX-In include “I am irritated a great deal more than people are aware of’ and “I boil inside but don’t show it.” The second subscale consists of eight items that assess anger expression, or anger-out (AX-Out). Sample items are “I do things like slam doors” and “I say nasty things.” Preliminary research supported the psychometric properties of the AX (Spielberger et al., 1985; Spielberger, 1988). In the present study, coefficient alpha was .72 for the eight-item anger-in subscale, and .68 for the eight-item anger-out subscale.

The Interpersonal Support Evaluation List. The Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL) is a 40-item questionnaire that assesses the perceived availability of potential social support (Cohen & Hoberman, 1983; Cohen, Mermelstein, Kamarck, & Hoberman, 1985). The scale contains four 10-item subscales to assess tangible support, appraisal support, self-esteem support, and belongingness support. The psychometric properties of the ISEL have been established in previous research (Cohen & Hoberman, 1983; Cohen et al., 1985; Hart, 1996; Hart & Hittner 1991; Hart, Hittner, & Paras, 1991). In the present sample, the internal reliabilities of the four subscales ranged from .76 to 33 , with an alpha of .90 for the total 40-item scale.

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960, 1964) is a 33-item measure that has been extensively validated as a measure of social desirability response bias (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960, 1964; Tanaka-Matsumi & Kameoka, 1986). In the present sample, Cronbach’s alpha was .77 for the MCSDS.

Results

Social Desirability

Zero-order correlations indicate that social desirability is indeed related to both anger coping styles and perceived social support. Specifically, social desirability was negatively correlated with anger-in ( r = -.36, p < .001) but was unrelated to anger-out ( r = -.13, p = ns). Moreover, social desirability was positively associated with perceived support ( r = .37, p < .001).


Predicting Support From Anger Coping Styles

We used hierarchical multiple regression analysis to predict level of social support from the two measures of anger coping style, anger-in and anger-out. First, we entered social desirability into the model to control for response set. Second, we entered both of the anger-coping-style scales simultaneously. Together, the anger-coping-style scales accounted for an additional 9% of the variance in social support scores (R2 = .09, F-change = 3.1, p < .05). Results also indicated that anger-in significantly predicted social support above the effects of social desirability (beta = -.32, p < .Ol), whereas anger-out failed to contribute to the prediction of social support (beta = .02, p = ns). To examine the specific nature of the support deficits exhibited by participants scoring high on anger-in, we computed partial correlations relating anger-in to each of the four social-support subscales. Results showed that anger-in was inversely related to deficiencies in appraisal support (pr = -.32, p < .OOl), self-esteem support (pr = -.29, p < .Ol), tangible support (pr = -.24, p < .Ol), and belongingness support (pr = -. 19, p < .05). None of the partial correlations relating anger-out to support were sig- nificant (range of prs: -.03 to .OO).

Discussion

The findings of this investigation are consistent with previous research showing that habitual inhibition of anger has adverse effects on social support systems (Johnson & Greene, 1991; Lane & Hobfoll, 1992). In the present study, a regression model that included both anger-in and anger-out showed that greater levels of anger-in are associated with an impoverished sense of support availability. This finding refines, replicates, and extends previous research with Black adolescents (Johnson & Greene, 1991) by showing that the relationship between anger-in and perceived support also exists among White college students and is independent of the influence of social desirability response set.

Moreover, the present results contribute to a more precise understanding of the nature of the support deficits experienced by high-anger suppressors: Anger suppression was associated specifically with perceived deficiencies in tangible support, self-esteem support, and belongingness support. Finally, anger suppressors believed that they had no one with whom they could discuss their personal problems (i.e., lack of appraisal support). This pattern of associations suggests that inhibition of anger is inversely related to a variety of specific types of support deficiencies, independent of the influence of social desirability response set.

Because anger is a social emotion that most frequently occurs in the context of conflict-laden social interaction (Averill, 1982), it is likely that the habitual tendency to inhibit the expression of anger is associated with concomitant cog- nitive or behavioral social withdrawal. Social disengagement, in turn, may erode

Palfai & Hart 409

social support and contribute to a perceived lack of support availability. In addition, the tendency to experience anger secretly may adversely affect social cognitions in such a way as to reduce the desire for support or willingness to seek support. Of course, it is also possible that the relationship between anger suppression and perceived support may be bidirectional (Smith & Christensen, 1992). When experiencing anger arousal, isolated people without a support sys- tem may suppress their anger simply because no one is present to receive their cathartic expressions.

Previous researchers have shown that deficiencies in social support are related to both anger-in (Johnson & Greene, 1991) and anger-out (Lane & Hobfoll, 1992). In the present study, however, the perceived availability of social support was significantly and inversely associated with anger-in, but was unrelated to anger-out. One possible explanation for this pattern of differential associations is that anger-in and anger-out coping styles are associated with different types of social support outcomes. For example, Lane and Hobfoll (1 992) reported that high levels of anger-out among pulmonary patients were associated with reduced social engagement among potentially supportive others. However, anger-out was unrelated to patient perceptions of support. These data might be interpreted as suggesting that anger-out may have its primary deleterious effect on enacted or received support (by causing others to withdraw).

In contrast, it is possible that anger-in may have its primary impact upon the social cognitions and perceptions of support held by angry people them- selves. Specifically, people who are secretly angry may lose their desire for or their willingness to seek support. In either case, anger suppressors may withdraw from others, either cognitively or behaviorally, and thereby cut them- selves off from support that might otherwise be potentially available (Houston & Vavak, 1991).

Smith and his colleagues (Smith & Christensen, 1992; Smith & Pope, 1990 ) proposed a “psychosocial vulnerability” model of biomedical disease risk: Angry and hostile people experience elevated risk for ill health in part because of deficiencies in health-protective resources such as social support. It is possible that such a model can be extended to help explain high rates of ill health and elevated health risk among anger suppressors (Engebretson et al., 1989; Fried- man, 1992; Spielberger, 1988). Specifically, insufficient levels of social support may represent a potentially important diathesis for ill health among individuals who habitually suppress anger when they experience it.

Clearly, future researchers on anger expression would benefit from tapping greater heterogeneity in their measures of social support. They should also con- sider controlling for the influence of social desirability and neuroticism (Hart, 1996) by using longitudinal designs to track effects of changes in social support and life stress upon physical health and illness. In this way, future studies of morbidity and mortality associated with anger coping styles can test the predictive validity of Smith’s diathesis theory of social support deficits.


REFERENCES

Appel, M. A,, Holroyd, K. A,, & Gorkin, L. (1983). Anger and the etiology and progres- sion of physical illness. In L. Temoshock, C. Van Dyke, & L. s. Zegans (Eds.), Emo- tions in health and illness: Theoretical and research foundations (pp. 73-87). New York: Grune & Statton.

Averill, J. R. (1982). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New York: Springer. Broadhead, W. E., Kaplan, B. H., James, S. A., Wagner, E. H., Schenbach, V. J., Gnnson,

R., Heyden, S., Tibblin, G., & Gehlbach, S. H. (1984). The epidemiologic evidence for a relationship between social support and health. American Journal of Epidemiology,

Cohen, S., & Hoberman, H. M. (1983). Positive events and social supports as buffers of life change stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 99-125.

Cohen, S., Mermelstein, R., Kamarck, T., & Hoberman, H. (1985). Measuring the func- tional components of social support. In I. G. Sarason & B. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 73-94). The Hague, Holland: Martinus Nijhoff.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative depen- dence. New York: Wiley.

Engebretson, T. O., Mathews, K. A,, & Scheier, M. F. (1989). Relations between anger expression and cardiovascular reactivity: Reconciling inconsistent findings through a matching hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 5 13-52],

Friedman, H. S. (Ed.). (1992). Hostility, coping and health. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hart, K. E. (1996). Perceived availability of different types of social support among cyn- ically hostile women. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 52, 1-5.

Hart, K. E., & Hittner, J. B. (1991). Irrational beliefs, perceived availability of social support and anxiety. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 582-586.

Hart, K. E., Hittner, J. B., & Paras, K. (1991). Sense of coherence, trait anxiety, and the perceived availability of social support. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 25, 137-145.

Heller, K., & Swindle, R. W. (1983). Social networks, perceived social support and coping with stress. In R. D. Felner, L. A. Jason, J. Moritsugu, & S. S. Forber (Eds.), Preventive psychotherapy: Theory, research and practice (pp. 87-103). New York: Pergamon.

Houston, B. K., & Vavak, C. R. (1991). Cynical hostility: Developmental factors, psychosocial correlates and health behaviors. Health Psychology, 10, 9-17.

Johnson, E. H. (1990). The deadly emotions: The role of angel; hostility, and aggression in health and emotional well-being. New York: Praeger.

Johnson, E. H., & Greene, A. (1991). The relationship between suppressed anger and psychosocial distress in African American male adolescents. Journal of Black Psychology, 18, 4 7 4 5 .

Julius, M., Harburg, E., Cottington, E. M., & Johnson, E. H. (1986). Anger coping types, blood pressure, and all-cause mortality: A follow-up in Tecumseh, Michigan (1971- 1983). American Journal of Epidemiology, 124, 220-233.

Lakey, B. (1989). Personal and environmental antecedents of perceived social support developed at college. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 503-5 19.

Lane, C., & Hobfoll, S. E. (1992). How loss affects anger and alienates potential sup- porters. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 935-942.

Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer. Sarason, I., & Sarason, B. (Eds.). (1985). Social support: Theory, research and applica-

117, 521-537.

tions. The Hague, Netherlands: Nijhoff.

Palfai & Hart 41 1

Siege], J. M. (1992). Anger and cardiovascular health. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.), Hostility, coping and health (pp. 49-64). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Siegman, A. W. (1994). Cardiovascular consequences of expressing and repressing anger. In A. W. Siegman & T. W. Smith (Eds.), Anger, hostility and the heart (pp. 173-198). New York: Erlbaum.

Smith, T. W., & Pope, M. K. (1990). Cynical hostility as a health risk: Current status and future directions. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 77-88.

Smith, T. W., & Christensen, A. J. (1992). Hostility, health and social contexts. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.), Hostility, coping and health (pp. 3348) . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Spielberger, C., Johnson, E., Russell, S., Crane, R., Jacobs, G., & Worden, T. (1985). The experience and expression of anger: Construction and the validation of an anger expression scale (pp. 5-30). In M. A. Chesney & R. G. Rosenman (Eds.), Anger and hostility in cardiovascular and behavioral disorders. New York: Hemisphere.

Spielberger, C. D. (1988). Professional manual for the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI) (research ed.). Tampa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Tanaka-Matsumi, J., & Kameoka, V. A. (1986). Reliabilities and concurrent validities of popular self-report measures of depression, anxiety, and social desirability. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 328-333.

Thomas, S. P. (1989). Gender differences in anger expression: Health implications. Research in Nursing and Health, 12, 389-398.

Welte, J. W., & Russell, M. (1993). Influence of socially desirable responding in a study of stress and substance abuse. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 17, 758-76 1.

Received June 17, 1996

anger coping styles and perceived social support

Documents