Journal List > Korean J Women Health Nurs > v.21(2) > 1089502

Moon and Cho: Anger, Anger Expression Types, Problem Behaviors, and Suicide Probability in Adolescent Women using Cluster Analysis

Abstract

Purpose

This cross-sectional study was designed to identify anger-expression types of adolescent women and investigate the relationship between the identified anger-expression types and their problem behaviors and suicide probability.

Methods

The participants were 942 students at two female high school located in Gwangju. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, cluster analysis, t-test, ANOVA, and Scheffé multiple comparison test.

Results

Cluster analysis revealed 4 distinct anger expression types; Anger-out, Low anger expression, Anger-control, and Anger-in/out types. Female adolescent women had a higher level of trait anger or who frequently used the anger-in/out type reported internalized-externalized problem behaviors and suicide probability more frequently compared to those who frequently used the other three types of anger expression.

Conclusion

Female adolescent women who had the low anger expression type and anger control type managed anger most effectively. The findings suggest the necessity of a development of the program for lowering the trait anger level and controlling the unfavorable anger expression types such as the anger-in/out.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1

Four anger-expression types of adolescent women.

kjwhn-21-128-g001
Table 1

General Characteristics of Subjects (N=942)

kjwhn-21-128-i001
Variables Categories n (%) Trait anger Anger expression Problem behaviors Suicide probability
M±SD t or F (p) M±SD t or F (p) M±SD t or F (p) M±SD t or F (p)
Grade 1th 270 (28.7) 16.97±4.28 0.40
(.673)
9.59±6.46 1.16
(.313)
43.45±6.86 2.56
(.078)
55.08±10.76 0.28
(.754)
2th 271 (28.8) 17.07±3.88 9.97±5.70 44.57±6.43 54.60±10.18
3th 401 (42.6) 16.78±4.53 10.35±6.60 44.73±8.56 54.47±10.65
Curriculum track Liberal art 553 (58.7) 17.19±17.19 2.24
(.026)
9.36±6.49 -2.84
(.005)
44.83±7.94 2.48
(.013)
53.77±10.49 2.27
(.024)
Natural science 389 (41.3) 16.56±16.56 10.54±6.13 43.62±6.89 55.34±10.53
Best friend Yes 867 (92.0) 16.80±4.16 -2.15
(.035)
9.88±6.14 -2.76
(.006)
43.98±7.41 -5.03
(<.001)
54.14±10.35 -5.46
(<.001)
No 67 (7.1) 18.19±5.17 12.08±7.77 48.73±7.89 61.34±11.13
Missing value 8 (0.8) 18.38±7.21 8.25±8.86 44.38±6.95 57.65±6.73
Academic records Gooda 112 (11.9) 16.91±4.16 0.02
(.985)
9.59±6.77 1.79
(.168)
43.88±7.04 0.49
(.613)
49.74±8.68 23.84
(<.001)
a<b<c
Fairb 621 (65.9) 16.90±4.35 10.30±6.29 44.29±7.71 54.48±10.55
Poorc 203 (21.5) 16.96±4.21 9.42±6.15 44.73±7.30 58.04±10.31
Missing value 6 (0.6) 17.08±1.29 9.83±4.62 41.17±5.81 53.49±11.18
Economic status Gooda 34 (3.6) 17.63±5.04 1.49
(.227)
9.49±8.45 0.58
(.559)
45.91±8.91 0.78
(.461)
50.89±10.46 5.41
(.005)
c<a=b
Fairb 829 (88.0) 16.83±4.31 10.08±6.27 44.29±7.57 54.57±10.51
Poorc 71 (7.5) 17.58±3.48 9.32±5.44 44.18±6.35 57.78±9.73
Missing value 8 (0.8) 16.75±3.20 12.75±7.76 41.75±7.89 54.63±15.01
Peer relation Very gooda 436 (46.3) 16.71±4.22 1.13
(.323)
9.05±6.27 10.60
(<.001)
a<b
43.25±7.17 9.73
(<.001)
a<b
51.84±10.21 41.87
(<.001)
a<b<c
Goodb 500 (53.1) 17.08±4.34 10.82±6.22 45.20±7.75 56.93±10.00
Not goodc 4 (0.4) 18.50±1.00 15.00±10.10 51.50±3.11 79.75±12.04
Missing value 2 (0.2) 18.50±0.71 11.00±1.41 42.41±3.41 60.50±14.85
Communication (father) Very gooda 210 (22.3) 16.55±4.10 2.91
(.034)
a<d
8.69±6.12 5.47
(.001)
a<c
42.40±6.74 11.84
(<.001)
a<b<c=d
49.16±9.41 44.45
(<.001)
a<b<c=d
Goodb 512 (54.4) 16.85±4.40 10.09±6.31 44.20±7.61 54.80±9.86
Not goodc 186 (19.7) 17.19±4.15 10.99±6.56 46.20±7.57 58.79±10.21
Not at all goodd 32 (3.4) 18.81±3.88 11.78±4.75 48.31±7.36 65.11±11.47
Missing value 2 (0.2) 16.50±0.71 15.00±1.41 37.50±0.71 53.26±0.58
Communication (mother) Very gooda 396 (42.0) 16.60±4.18 3.91
(.009)
a<d
9.02±6.27 7.21
(<.001)
a<b=c
42.92±6.77 14.24
(<.001)
a<b<c
50.5±9.20 55.52
(<.001)
a<b<c=d
Goodb 464 (49.3) 16.97±4.31 10.54±6.20 44.78±7.70 56.52±10.04
Not goodc 75 (8.0) 17.84±4.27 12.08±6.40 48.71±8.51 64.33±9.92
Not at all goodd 7 (0.7) 20.86±5.27 10.57±7.41 45.57±5.00 62.57±15.24
Bullying experience Yes 94 (10.0) 18.54±5.23 3.22
(.002)
12.79±6.38 4.52
(<.001)
47.02±8.48 3.67
(<.001)
59.94±12.30 5.20
(<.001)
No 841 (89.3) 16.74±4.11 9.71±6.24 44.04±7.37 54.09±10.11
Missing value 7 (0.7) 16.14±5.90 10.14±5.96 41.83±7.64 54.43±17.16
Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for the Research Variables (N=942)

kjwhn-21-128-i002
Variables M±SD Range Skewness Kurtosis
Trait anger 16.92±4.28 10~40 0.81 0.80
Anger expression 47.24±6.96 24~96 0.04 0.40
 Anger-out 13.41±2.97 8~32 0.49 -0.05
 Anger-in 15.23±3.30 8~32 0.27 -0.11
 Anger-control 18.61±4.42 8~32 0.38 0.21
Problem behaviors 44.32±7.53 32~160 1.18 2.58
 Internalized problem behaviors 21.56±4.29 14~70 0.68 0.32
 Externalized problem behaviors 22.75±4.14 18~90 1.86 5.96
Suicide probability 54.68±10.54 31~124 0.53 0.77
Table 3

Means and Standard Deviation of Four Anger Expression Types (N=942)

kjwhn-21-128-i003
Variables Cluster I (Anger-out) typea
n=293 (31.1%)
Cluster II (Low anger expression) typeb
n=241 (25.6%)
Cluster III (Anger-control) typec
n=276 (29.3%)
Cluster IV (Anger-in/out) typed
n=132 (14.0%)
F (p) Scheffé
M±SD M±SD M±SD M±SD
Anger-out 15.37±1.89 11.35±1.60 11.55±1.95 16.69±2.84
Anger-in 14.87±1.88 11.85±1.97 16.32±2.47 19.87±2.21
Anger-control 16.05±2.83 16.05±3.14 23.13±3.24 18.61±3.40
Internalized problem behaviors 21.79±4.16 19.77±3.51 21.45±4.04 24.60±4.65 41.14 (<.001) b<a, c<d
Externalized problem behaviors 23.76±4.33 21.25±3.25 21.75±3.22 25.36±4.95 44.83 (<.001) b, c<a<d
Suicide probability 56.34±11.06 52.31±8.88 52.50±10.28 59.88±10.27 22.60 (<.001) b, c<a<d
Table 4

Correlation among the Major Variables (N=942)

kjwhn-21-128-i004
Factors Trait anger Anger-out Anger-in Anger-control Internalized problem behaviors Externalized problem behaviors Suicide probability
Trait anger 1
 Anger-out .53 (<.001) 1
 Anger-in .26 (<.001) .26 (<.001) 1
 Anger-control -.24 (<.001) -.16 (<.001) .29 (<.001) 1
Internalized problem behaviors .33 (<.001) .25 (<.001) .42 (<.001) -.01 (.791) 1
Externalized problem behaviors .41 (<.001) .36 (<.001) .25 (<.001) -.15 (<.001) .60 (<.001) 1
Suicide probability .29 (<.001) .18 (<.001) .30 (<.001) -.21 (<.001) .61 (<.001) .44 (<.001) 1

Notes

This paper was supported(in part) by Research Funds of Mokpo National University in 2012".(No.: 2012-0185)

Summary Statement

▪ What is already known about this topic?
Anger is a common emotion throughout the adolescent period, which may be related to increased suicidal tendencies in adolescents. However, there is a lack of research aimed at identifying anger-expression types and investigating therelation between the identified anger-expression types and their problem behaviors and suicide probability among high school students
▪ What this paper adds?
Female adolescent women had 4 distinct anger expression types and those who were frequently using the anger-in/out type among the four types and with a higher trait anger reported higher internalized-externalized problem behaviors and suicide probability.
▪ Implications for practice, education and/or policy
The findings suggest the necessity of a development of nursing intervention strategies that can help anger control and adjustment based on different types of anger expression among female adolescent women.

References

1. Korea National Statistical Office. Annual report of the cause of death statistics [Internet]. Daejeon: Korea National Statistical Office;2012. cited 2014 June 27. Available from: http://kosis.kr/ups/ups_01List01.jsp?pubcode=YD.
2. Lee YS, Cho JY. A standardization study of the Korean version of the adolescent's state-trait anger expression inventory. J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc. 1999; 38(4):794–804.
3. Lee JE, Choi DW, Lim JH. Construction of a structural model about middle school students' anger, depression, and suicidal ideation. J Korean Soc Sch Health. 2013; 26(2):72–80.
4. Park YJ, Han KS, Shin HJ, Kang HC, Moon SH. Anger, problem behaviors, and health status in adolescent women. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2004; 34(7):1234–1242.
crossref
5. Daniel SS, Goldston DB, Erkanli A, Franklin JC, Mayfield AM. Trait anger, anger expression, and suicide attempts among adolescents and young adults: A prospective study. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2009; 38(5):661–671.
crossref
6. Yoon HM, Park BK. Factors associated with adolescents' problem behaviors. Korean J Soc Welf Stud. 2005; 28:133–164.
7. Lee JY. The psychosocial characteristics of suicidal ideators for children: Problem behaviors, self-esteem, social skills and adaptation to school life. Korean J Couns. 2004; 5(1):163–175.
8. Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reports on the Korea youth risk behavior web-based survey 2006. Seoul, Korea: Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;2007.
9. Brent DA, Baugher M, Bridge J, Chen T, Chiappetta L. Age- and sex-related risk for adolescent suicide. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1999; 38(12):1497–1505.
10. Spielberger CD. Professional manual for the state-trait anger expression inventory (STAXI). Odessa FL: Psychological Assessment Resources;1988.
11. Achenbach TM. Manual for the youth self-report and 1991 profile. Burlington: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont;1991.
12. Oh KJ, Lee HL, Hong KE, Ha EH. Korea-child behavior checklist (K-CBCL). Seoul: ChungAng Aptitude Publishing;1997.
13. Jang DH. The influences of family violence experience type on children's emotional, behavioral and social maladjustment. Korean J Youth Stud. 2004; 11(3):65–91.
14. Cull JG. Suicide probability scale (SPS) manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services;1982.
15. Go HJ, Kim DJ, Lee HP. A validation study of the suicide probability scale for adolescence (SPS-A). J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc. 2000; 39(4):680–690.
16. West SG, Finch JF, Curran PJ. Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problem and remedies. In : Hoyle RH, editor. Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage;1995.
17. Hair JF, Black WC. Cluster analysis. In : Grimm LG, Yarnold PR, editors. Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics. Washington, DC: APA;2000.
18. Kim HS, Chae YS, Bae YJ. The protective factors of suicide probability in religious male high school students. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2012; 42(1):1–8.
crossref
19. Park YJ, Ryu H, Han KS, Kwon JH, Kim HK, Kang HC, et al. Anger, anger expression, and suicidal ideation in Korean adolescents. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2010; 24(3):168–177.
crossref
20. Yi SG, Yi YJ, Jung HS. Factors on the suicidal attempt by gender of middle and high school student. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2011; 41(5):652–662.
crossref
21. Cautin RL, Overholser JC, Goetz P. Assessment of mode of anger expression in adolescent psychiatric inpatients. Adolescence. 2001; 36(141):163–170.
22. Gross JJ, John OP. Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003; 85(2):348–362.
crossref
23. Boergers J, Spirito A, Donaldson D. Reasons for adolescent suicide attempts: Associations with psychological functioning. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1998; 37(12):1287–1293.
crossref
24. Zhang P, Roberts RE, Liu Z, Meng X, Tang J, Sun L, et al. Hostility, physical aggression and trait anger as predictors for suicidal behavior in Chinese adolescents: A school-based study. Plos One. 2012; 7(2):e31044.
crossref
TOOLS
Similar articles