Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Iowa State University Capstones, Theses andDissertations 1988 Women and anger: gender and sex role differences in anger expression and their effects on depression and self Beverly Ann Kopper-Roland Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Psychology Commons This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact digirep@iastate.edu. Recommended Citation Kopper-Roland, Beverly Ann, "Women and anger: gender and sex role differences in anger expression and their effects on depression and self " (1988). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 8862. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/8862 INFORMATION TO USERS The most advanced technology has been used to photo graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. These are also available as one exposure on a standard 35mm slide or as a IT x 23" black and white photographic print for an additional charge. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Number 8000164 Women and anger: Gender and sex-role differences in anger expression and their effects on depression and self Kopper-Roland, Beverly Ann, Ph.D. Iowa State University, 1988 U M I 300N.ZeebRd. Ann Aibor, MI 48106 Women and anger: Gender and sex role differences In anger expression and their effects on depression and self by Beverly Ann Kopper-Roland A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Maj or: Psychology Approved: For the Major Department For the Graduate College Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 1988 Signature was redacted for privacy. Signature was redacted for privacy. Signature was redacted for privacy. il TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 LITERATURE REVIEW 3 The Psychology of Women 4 Ethical Issues in the Psychology of Women 6 Counseling Women 11 Women and Anger 19 Anger and symptomology 23 Sex Role Issues 29 Summary 33 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 35 METHOD 40 Subjects 40 Materials 43 Demographic questionnaire 43 State-Trait Anger Scale (STAS) 44 Anger Expression (AX) Scale 46 Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI) 50 Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) 52 Bern Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) 54 Interpersonal Behavior Survey (IBS) 57 Procedure 59 RESULTS 61 Analyses of Variance 62 Multiple Regression and Correlation 106 Cluster Analyses 116 Preliminary analyses 116 Cluster analysis using factor scores 118 Validation of clusters 120 Ill Cluster analysis using unit factor scores 129 DISCUSSION 134 Limitations of the Study 141 Implications 142 REFERENCES 145 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 154a APPENDIX A. TEST BOOKLET 155 APPENDIX B. INSTRUCTIONS FOR TESTING BOOKLET ADMINISTRATION 184 APPENDIX C. PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR SAMPLE VARIABLES BY SEX 187 APPENDIX D. PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR SAMPLE VARIABLES 220 APPENDIX E. SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN THE MEANS FOR THE CLUSTERING VARIABLES 243 iv LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Demographic characteristics of subjects 41a Table 2. Correlational matrices for the Buss Durkee Hostility Inventory 51 Table 3. Means and standard deviations for the total sample 63 Table 4. Analysis of variance for hypothesis one 65 Table 5. Significant differences in the means for sex role classification for trait anger 66 Table 6. Significant differences in the means for sex role classification for anger expression 67 Table 7. Analysis of variance for hypothesis two 69 Table 8. Significant differences in the means for sex role classification for anger suppression 70 Table 9. Analysis of variance for hypothesis three 71 Table 10. Significant differences in the means for sex role classification for anger control 72 Table 11. Analysis of variance for hypothesis four 74 Table 12. Significant differences in the means for sex, trait anger and anger suppression for depression 75 Table 13. Differences in the means for the interactional effect of trait anger and anger-out on depression 77 Table 14. Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relation ship of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-in, and anger-out and their interactions to self-confidence 80 Table 15. Significant differences In the means for sex role for self-confidence 81 Table 16. Significant differences in the means for trait anger for self-confidence 82 Table 17. Significant differences in the means for anger-in for self-confidence 83 V Table 18. Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relation ship of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-In and anger-out and their Interactions to dependency 84 Table 19. Significant differences In the means for sex for dependency 86 Table 20. Significant differences in the means for sex role for dependency 87 Table 21. Significant differences in the means for trait anger for dependency 88 Table 22. Differences in the means for the interactional effect of sex and sex role on dependency 89 Table 23. Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relation ship of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-in, and anger-out and their interactions to passive- aggressiveness 90 Table 24. Significant differences in the means for sex for passive-aggressiveness 91 Table 25. Significant differences in the means for sex role for passive-aggressiveness 93 Table 26. Significant differences in the means for trait anger for passive-aggressiveness 94 Table 27. Significant differences in the means for anger-in for passive-aggressiveness 95 Table 28. Significant differences in the means for anger-out for passive-aggressiveness 96 Table 29. Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relation ship of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-in, and anger-out and their Interactions to conflict avoidance 97 Table 30. Significant differences in the means for sex role for conflict avoidance 98 Table 31. Significant differences in the means for anger-in for conflict avoidance 100 Table 32. Significant differences in the means for anger-out for conflict avoidance 101 vl Table 33. Differences In the means for the Interactional effect of sex role and trait anger on conflict avoidance 102 Table 34. Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relation ship of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-In, and anger-out and their Interactions to guilt 103 Table 35. Significant differences in the means for trait anger for guilt 104 Table 36. Significant differences in the means for anger-in for guilt 105 Table 37, Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relation ship of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-in, and anger-out and their interactions to resentment 107 Table 38. Significant differences in the means for sex role for resentment 108 Table 39. Significant differences in the means for trait anger for resentment 109 Table 40. Significant differences in the means for anger-in for resentment 110 Table 41. Significant differences in the means for anger-out for resentment 111 Table 42. Pearson correlation coefficients for women and men 113 Table 43. Rotated factor pattern 117 Table 44. Analysis of variance with the five clusters 123 Table 45. Description of five clusters 124 Table 46. Cluster by sex frequency table 130 Table 47. Factor loading scores for clustering dimensions 131 vil Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. LIST OF FIGURES Plot of seml-partlal r squared scores Group means for the three factors using a five cluster solution Plot of seml-partlal r squared scores Group means for the three dimensions using a three cluster solution 1 INTRODUCTION In recent years* traditional beliefs regarding the roles, ex periences, behaviors, and expectations of women, and about women, have gained more attention. This has prompted psychology and other mental health professions to examine their theories and assumptions about women. From this reexamination, a new field was born related to the psychology of women and increased attention was given to the area of counseling women. This resulted in new directions and guidelines for treating women which focused on egalitarian therapy relationships with a consciousness-raising approach. This included an exploration of a woman's sense of personal power and unexpressed anger and helping her to redefine herself apart from others. Encouraging women to nurture themselves and develop multiple skills to Increase competence and productivity also were advocated. Finally, through information col lected from the lives and experiences of female clients, critical life issues affecting women's development, personality, and life satisfaction were identified. One of these important issues has been the manner in which women experience and express anger. Limited attempts have been made to study this issue empirically. Many professionals examining the sources of women's anger focus on cultural determinants related to issues of powerlessness, dependency, and devaluation. Socialization and our culture's taboos against women experiencing and expressing anger have resulted in a milieu in which women are reinforced for hiding or suppressing anger, or expressing it Indirectly. Many now believe that the resulting difficulties that women 2 have In expressing anger can be Implicated In a wide variety of mental health problems Including depression, guilt, and passive-aggressiveness. Although speculations about women's experience and expression of anger have been widespread, little empirical evidence exists to support those hypotheses. Intuitively, the relationship between unexpressed anger and mental health difficulties appears justified. However, this relationship must be evaluated. Additionally, since cultural factors are so heavily implicated in this relationship, sex role differences, as well as gender differences related to anger expression also must be examined. The intent of this study was to examine contemporary speculations regarding women and anger. Specifically, this study investigated women's experience and expression of anger as well as relationships that might exist among various aspects of anger and Important indices of mental health. Gender and sex role differences were explored to provide a more comprehensive study. 3 LITERATURE REVIEW The majority of information and models available to professionals working with women, including issues related to anger, are based on clinical experience and interpretation. There exists a dearth of information based on empirical investigation. Thus, although there have been articles and books written advancing various guidelines for treating women and facilitating the expression of anger, few are presented with scientific data to support their recommendations. This study focuses on several components of anger: intensity, proneness as a personality trait, expression, and control. These anger variables were Investigated as they relate to various consequences of anger expression which affect important aspects of mental health, e.g., depression, guilt, self-confidence, dependency, passive-aggressiveness, conflict avoidance, and resentment. A secondary focus was to examine the relationships and possible gender and sex role differences which exist in the above variables and various components of hostility, aggressiveness, and assertlveness. Relevant literature is reviewed in this section to provide a con text for the proposed study. The review is organized around the fol lowing content areas: the psychology of women, ethical Issues in the psychology of women, the field of counseling women, those studies re lated specifically to women and anger, and important sex role issues. 4 The Psychology of Women There are several Important Issues related to the psychology of women that need to be discussed as a foundation for examining Issues related to women and anger. Beginning In 1926, Karen Homey addressed the status of the psychology of women by stating: Like all sciences and valuations, the psychology of women has hitherto been considered only from the point of view of men. It Is Inevitable that the man's position of advantage should cause objective validity to be attributed to his sub jective, affective relations to women... the question then Is how far analytical psychology also, when Its researches have women for their object. Is under the spell of this way of thinking (Kelman, 1967, p. 56). Fifty years later, Phyllis Chesler (1976) echoed a similar concern stating that "Female psychology Is still being viewed from a masculine point of view" (p. 318). Many psychologists today, In particular feminist psychologists, still would agree that scientific Investigations conducted under the rubric of the psychology of women do not necessarily guarantee that the Issues examined will have relevance or prove beneficial to the lives of women. Richardson and Johnson (1984) discuss the differences that exist among various psychological Investigations of women which can be classified into three categories: 1) psychology on women, 2) psy chology against women, and 3) psychology of/for women. It is the latter, the psychology of/for women which focuses on those issues of study most relevant to women's lives. The psychology on and against women do not, for the most part, make explicit their underlying values and biases, but remain within the framework of traditional psychology. Two recent trends in the field of the psychology of women were 5 Identified by Richardson and Johnson (1984) as having important implications for practice. The first major trend was the recogni tion that values affect the development of theory and research re lated to psychology as well as other fields of science. This led to challenges to the belief that science, including psychology, can be value free. This also raised questions concerning why women typically have been ignored in psychological theory and re search (Richardson & Johnson, 1984) and to renewed interest in psychologi cal factors important to women. Therefore, the field of the psychology of women has focused on issues relevant to women's lives, in many cases, issues that have not been investigated by mainstream psychology. The second major trend in the field with direct implications for practice was the recognition of environmental factors of critical im portance to the psychology of women. Many authors have discussed the need to relate theory and research in the psychology of women to broader issues of environmental, social, and political change (Collier, 1982; Fitzgerald & Nutt, 1986; Mednick, 1978; Parlee, 1979; Richardson & Johnson, 1984; Tangri & Strasburg, 1979). Therefore, relevant issues related to women are no longer being viewed from a strict intrapsychic perspective, but are being examined systemically. This sets the stage for broader interventions and strategies for change. The field of the psychology of women, as the authors listed above have suggested, must focus on those issues most relevant to the lives and experiences of women. If this field is truly to be considered a thriving component of psychology and science alike, then the effort must be made to investigate those relevant issues utilizing sound 6 methodological principles. In this manner, conclusions and recommendations can be offered based on empirical findings rather than mere specula tion. This is Imperative if the psychology of women is to be considered a discipline exempt from those same accusations of subjectlveness it has levied against traditional psychology. Ethical Issues in the Psychology of Women In 1975, the American Psychological Association (APA) formed a Task Force on Sex Bias and Sex Role Stereotyping in Psychotherapeutic Practice. This task force was charged with investigating sexism in psychotherapy and making recommendations for corrective actions. The task force surveyed women psychologists and determined that sexism in therapy falls into four general categories: 1) fostering traditional sex roles, 2) bias in expectations and devaluation of women, 3) sexist use of psychoanalytic concepts, and 4) responding to women as sex objects, including seduction of female clients. From these categories, the task force developed 13 general guidelines for ethical and effective psychotherapy with women; "Guidelines for Therapy with Women, published in December 1978 in the American Psychologist. Each guideline was presented with a verbatim example taken from the initial survey of women psychologists. The specific guidelines are as follows: 1. The conduct of therapy should be free of constrictions based on gender-defined roles, and the options explored between client and practitioner should be free of sex role stereo types . 7 2. Psychologists should recognize the reality, variety, and Implications of sex-discriminatory practices in society and should facilitate client examination of options in dealing with such practices. 3. The therapist should be knowledgeable about current empirical findings on sex roles, sexism, and individual differences resulting from the client's gender-defined identity. 4. The theoretical concepts employed by the therapist should be free of sex bias and sex role stereotypes. 5. The psychologist should demonstrate acceptance of women as equal to men by using language free of derogatory labels. 6. The psychologist should avoid establishing the source of personal problems within the client when they are more properly attributable to situational or cultural factors. 7. The psychologist and a fully informed client mutually should agree upon aspects of the therapy relationship such as treat ment modality, time factors, and fee arrangements. 8. While the importance of the availability of accurate informa tion to a client's family is recognized, the privilege of communication about diagnosis, prognosis, and progress ultimately resides with the client, not with the therapist. 9. If authoritarian processes are employed as a technique, the therapy should not have the effect of maintaining or rein forcing stereotypic dependency of women. 10. The client's assertive behaviors should be respected. 8 11. The psychologist whose female client Is subjected to violence In the form of physical abuse or rape should recognize and acknowledge that the client Is the victim of a crime. 12. The psychologist should recognize and encourage exploration of a female client's sexuality and should recognize her right to define her own sexual preferences. 13. The psychologist should not have sexual relations with a woman client nor treat her as a sex object (p. 1122). In 1984, the Division 17 Executive Committee approved the final version of "Principles Concerning the Counseling/Psychotherapy of Women." This document presented the background, rationale, and sug gestions for implementation of 13 principles related to counseling women : 1. Counselors/therapists should be knowledgeable about women, particularly with regard to biological, psychological, and social Issues which Impact on women in general or on particular groups of women in our society. 2. Counselors/therapists are aware that the assumptions and precepts of theories relevant to their practice may apply differently to men and women. Counselors/therapists are aware of their theories and models that prescribe or limit the potential of women clients, as well as those that may have particular usefulness for women clients. 3. After formal training, counselors/therapists continue to explore and learn of issues related to women, including the special problems of female subgroups, throughout their 9 professional careers. 4. Counselors/therapists recognize and are aware of all forms of oppression and how these interact with sexism. 5. Counselors/therapists are knowledgeable and aware of verbal and nonverbal process variables (particularly with regard to power In the relationship) as these affect women In counseling/therapy so that the counselor/therapist Interactions are not adversely affected. The need for shared responsibility between clients and counselors/therapists is acknowledged and Implemented. 6. Counselors/therapists have the capability of utilizing skills that are particularly facultative to women in general and to particular subgroups of women. 7. Counselors/therapists ascribe no preconceived limitations on the direction or nature of potential changes or goals in counseling/therapy for women. 8. Counselors/therapists are sensitive to circumstances where it Is more desirable for a women client to be seen by a female or male counselor/therapist. 9. Counselors/therapists use nonsexist language in counseling/ therapy, supervision, teaching, and journal publication. 10. Counselors/therapists do not engage in sexual activity with their women clients under any circumstances. 11. Counselors/therapists are aware of and continually review their own values and biases and the effects of these on their women clients. They understand the effects of sex-role 10 socialization upon their own development and functioning and the consequent values and attitudes they hold for themselves and others. They recognize that behaviors and roles need not be sex-based. 12. Counselors/therapists are aware of how their personal func tioning may Influence their effectiveness In counseling/ therapy with women clients. They monitor their functioning through consultation, supervision, or therapy so that It does not adversely affect their work with women clients. 13. Counselors/therapists support the elimination of sex bias within Institutions and Individuals (p. 181). Professionals who have not had exposure to current theory and re search In the psychology and counseling of women may also be In jeopardy of violating Principle 2 of the general Ethical Principles of Psycholo gists. Principle 2 relates to Competence — "Psychologists recognize the boundaries of their competence and the limitations of their competence and the limitations of their techniques and only provide services, and use techniques that meet recognized standards for which they are qualified by training and experience" (APA, 1981, p. 634). To practice without this knowledge and training "would appear to be in violation of ethical codes and licensing laws that require that one not practice outside one's area of competence" (Fitzgerald & Nutt, 1986, p. 187). Thus, based upon the guidelines and principles of APA, it becomes evident that psychologists have an ethical Imperative not only to obtain the training, skills, and knowledge necessary to treat female clients 11 effectively, but to be knowledgeable of those distinctive factors that have special relevance to women in general. Despite these efforts, many counselors have little or no knowledge of the various biological, psychological, and social issues impacting female clients (Fitzgerald & Nutt, 1986). Additionally, until very recently, the distinctive cultural realities of women's lives and minds, i.e., their life patterns, personality, and psychological processes as females, have been dis regarded (Collier, 1982). One of the critical issues frequently dis cussed as impacting women's lives is their experience and expression of anger. Counseling Women A major area of interest related to the psychology of women has been the experience of female clients in counseling and psychotherapy. In fact, one of the distinguishing characteristics of research on counseling women has been its close relationship with the general study of women (Richardson & Johnson, 1984). This relationship is exemplified by several classic studies conducted during the 1970s which set the stage for examining the treatment of women in therapy. In 1970, Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, and Vogel examined the sex-role stereotypes evident in clinical judgments of mental health. They found through analysis of the difference in clinician's descriptions of a mentally healthy adult male, adult female, and adult sex-unspecified, that therapists include sex-role stereotypes in their definitions of mental health. Specifically, mentally healthy 12 women were described as submissive, subjective, excitable in minor crises, easily hurt, and conceited about their appearance. This defini tion was in contrast to how these same clinicians viewed the healthy adult male and adult sex-unspecified. The authors concluded that thera pists subscribe to a double standard of mental health based on the sex of the client. This led to the speculation that therapists Impose stereotypic standards of mental health on their female clients, attempting to promote adjustment to sex-typed norms, rather than behavior based on a general, nonsexist standard of good mental health. Similarly, after Interviewing hundreds of female clients and examining hospital statistics, Chesler (1972) reported severe problems in the way women were treated. She included political and theoretical issues in her report concluding that: 1) for a number of reasons women "go crazy'* more often than men and this crazlness is more likely to be self-destructive rather than other-destructive, 2) most female "neuroses" are the result of societal demands and discrimination rather than sup posed mental illness, 3) the therapist-patient relationship reinforces a system of beliefs and attitudes that is psychologically damaging to the patient and rewarding to the therapist, and 4) female clients should always see a female therapist who is trained to be socially and politi cally aware, and cognizant of feminist issues. These findings were consistent with Bem's (1974), as she designed her Sex Role Inventory. In the process of her work, Bern surveyed college students to discover the adjectives commonly used to describe the typically feminine or masculine person. The resulting adjectives for females were gentle, yielding, sympathetic, understanding, childlike, 13 and sensitive to the needs of others. For males, the adjectives were ambitious, athletic, self-reliant, independent, assertive, dominant, and competitive. One can readily see that the masculine adjectives are those which society traditionally values, rewards, and usually attributes to a healthy adult. The results of these studies focused attention on allegations related to the negative consequences of psychotherapy for women. The role of society in furthering sexual stereotypes and biases also was recognized. Through the development of specific models of counseling women, attempts were made to remedy these negative consequences of therapy, as well as identify those issues critical to women's life experiences. Carmen, Russo, and Miller (1984) discussed this focus on women's issues: This new scholarship has identified sex bias in psychologi cal theories and methods, documented the pervasive and destructive effects of gender inequality, and examined the stresses that differentially affect women by virtue of their subordinate social status, especially in their family roles. Every basic formulation about women's psychology has been questioned and, in many Instances, reconceptualized (p. 17). Psychological theory, developed and investigated largely through the study of men, often has had little to offer related to women's behavior (Fitzgerald & Nutt, 1986). However, women have continued to remain the primary recipients of counseling since Freud first analyzed Dora and Anna 0 (Richardson & Johnson, 1984). In fact, this tradition is reflected in a variety of stigmatizing labels generally reserved for female clients, ranging from penis-envy to hysterical neurosis. Although women are the primary users of psychotherapy, problems specific 14 to women and women's Involvement In the development of theory and practice have suffered wide-ranging neglect (Brodsky & Hare-Mustin, 1980). Many feminist psychologists would agree that psychoanalytic theory and some of its offshoots have been particularly damaging to women. Freud's theories had a great impact on the way women, particularly female clients were viewed. In one of his introductory lectures de livered in 1917 on the sexual life of human beings, Freud discussed women's development: As regards little girls, we can say of them that they feel greatly at a disadvantage owing to their lack of a big, visible penis, that they envy boys for possessing one and that, in the main for this reason, they develop a wish to be a man — a wish that re-emerges later on, in any neurosis that may arise if they meet with a mishap in playing a feminine part (Strachey, 1966, p. 318). Freud (1927) expanded his theory by discussing the implications of penis- envy in women: The psychological consequences of penis-envy. Insofar as it does not become absorbed in the reaction-formation of the masculinity complex, are various and far-reaching. After a woman has become aware of the wound to her narcissism, she develops, like a scar, a sense of Inferiority. When she has passed beyond her first attempt at explaining her lack of a penis as being a punishment personal to herself and has realized that that sex character is a universal one, she begins to share the contempt, felt by men for a sex which is the lesser in so Important a respect, and, so far at least as maintaining this judgment is concerned, she clings obstinately to being like a man (p. 137). It is Important to note that psychoanalytic theory is not the only theory to receive criticism for the manner In which women's develop ment is conceptualized and women's issues are handled. Kaplan and Yaslnskl (1980) examined the implications for women In therapy of 15 Freudian, Rogerian, and Sullivanian theories. They concluded that in the areas of theoretical notions and clinical techniques: Gender bias is ubiquitious, reflected in a masculinist orientation to theory and technique. Although this bias is more explicit in some orientations than in others. It appears in each of them in the form of prescriptions for 'adjustment' to prevailing cultural conditions and imperatives and in developmental theories in which the male is the norm. Specific aspects of the female experience, as viewed from the female's own perspective, are systematically excluded (p. 210), During the 1970s with the advent of the women's and consumer rights movement. Increased attention was given to the questionable validity of many traditional psychological theories and practices related to women. This focused the attention of psychologists and other mental health professionals on the sexual exploitation and bias evident in situations involving female clients. Although there have been recent attempts to develop a psychology of women, there remains a wide gap between researched hypotheses and mere theoretical speculation. Moreover, the majority of current theories regarding female psychology have also proven to be irrelevant to the description and explanation of the experiences of black, Chlcano, poor, elderly, and gay women (Fitzgerald & Nutt, 1986). Thus, the life experiences of minority and poor women have largely been omitted from the psychology of women, as well as from traditional psychology (Grlscom, 1979). It is Important to note that Smith (1980) disagreed with the notion that sex bias has been proven by research to be Inherently pervasive In counseling and psychotherapy. She used meta-analysis to analyze published and unpublished studies of sex bias in counseling or psycho 16 therapy and concluded that there Is an absence of bias against women or against nonstereotyped roles for women In studies of either counselors or psychotherapists. She further stated that, "It Is Insufficient to prove deleterious effects of counseling and psychotherapy on women merely by establishing that clinicians hold stereotypes" (p. 393). She concluded that: Empirical support for the contention that counseling and psychotherapy are sexist and bad for women is extremely weak.... Motivation to conduct such research of this type was frequently ideological; that is, investigators seemed intent on establishing counselor sexism (a foregone conclusion in many minds). Designs were often weak. Small but statistically significant effects became sweeping, and categori cal conclusions.... Research reviews on this topic tended to be selective (p. 406). Before an attempt is made to delineate the Important Issues re lated to more recent theories of counseling women, it is important to examine a clear definition of what counseling women is all about. Richardson and Johnson (1984) consider the most common view of counseling women, female therapists counseling women, as limited and narrow. They offer an expanded, feminist definition of counseling women with three major components: values, cognitive foundations, and practical applica tions. Thus, in their view, counseling women is an applied field that: 1) places equal value on equality between women and men and equality among women, 2) is committed to understanding women in a societal context, and 3) utilizes models for practice appropriate to an under standing of women in a societal context. Collier (1982) stated that "recent efforts to develop psychological theories and therapeutic practices which are sex-fair or feminist have the simple aim of counteracting the inequality with which therapists 17 have been trained to view women" (p. 3). More specifically. Collier (1982) stated that: Therapy with women should therefore be seen as an inter vention process in which the trained and objective therapist provides a woman with the means of becoming her own change agent, independent of the therapist in the future and capable of making her own confident choices about her situation in the world (p. IS). Gilbert (1980) compared nonsexist and feminist psychotherapy and distinguished them by the fact that although feminist therapy, like nonsexist therapy, advocates equal treatment for women and men, feminist therapy also incorporates political values and a philosophy of feminism into its theory and practice. She discussed two major principles of feminist therapy: 1) the personal is political, and 2) the therapist- client relationship is viewed as egalitarian. Principle one is in corporated into practice by the following methods: 1) separating the internal from the external, 2) validation of the female experience, 3) exploration of values and attitudes by therapists, and 4) an emphasis on change rather than adjustment. The second principle is put into practice by: 1) shopping around for a therapist, 2) enhancement of a sense of personal power, 3) encouraging of self-nurturance, 4) modeling by the therapist, and 5) expression of anger. Worrell (1981) discussed new directions in counseling women and presented the following guidelines for feminist counseling, as sug gested by Brodsky (1973), Lehrman (1974), Maracek, Kravetz, and Finn (1979), Nutt (1979), Rawlings and Carter (1977), and Worrell (1976): 1. Providing an egalitarian relationship with shared responsi bility between counselor and client. The client is encouraged 18 to trust her own Judgment and to arrive at her own decisions. In contrast to many traditional counseling relationships, the client Is never In a one-down position of having to ac cept counselor interpretations of her behavior or external prescriptions for appropriate living. Employing a consciousness-raising approach. Women are helped to become aware of the societal restraints on their develop ment and opportunities. Clients are helped to differentiate between the politics of the sexist social structure and those problems over which they have realistic personal control. Helping women explore a sense of their personal power and how they can use it constructively In personal, business, and political relationships. Helping women to get in touch with unexpressed anger in order to combat depression and to make choices about how to use their anger constructively. Helping women to redefine themselves apart from their role rela tionships to men, children, and home; exploring women's fears about potential role changes that may alienate spouse and children, as well as coworkers and boss. Encouraging women to nurture themselves as well as caring for others, thereby raising self-confidence and self-esteem. Encouraging multiple skill development to Increase women's competence and productivity. This may Include assertlve- ness training, economic and career skills, and negotiation skills with Important others who resist change (p. 628). 19 These guidelines summarize the key issues evident throughout the majority of theories related to counseling women. Abandoning the person-blame, intrapsychic approach that is most damaging to women and adopting an environmental perspective that recognizes the effects of socialization appear to be critical in most theories. Those issues related to women's life experiences involve: 1) role and power issues; 2) women's tendency to nurture others at their own expense; and 3) their inability, particularly in close relationships, to express anger. It is the topic of anger and women's ability to express anger that is the focus of the proposed study. Women and Anger Collier (1982) believes that the sources of women's anger are numerous, including: powerlessness, feminine stereotypes, economic dependency, discrimination, and the general cultural devaluation of women. She also believes that our society routinely teaches women not to express their anger or in some instances to not even feel it. Thus, Collier believes that most women are taught to hide or suppress anger, or if necessary, to release anger indirectly. Therefore, many women find anger to be unacceptable, and as discussed by Collier: It is easier to rationalize that the anger is not Justified, is unimportant, won't do anything but harm, will not make a difference, and will stop all future nurturing. It is easier to ignore it, hold it inside, bury it, relieve it through scrubbing the floor, or condemn oneself (p. 62). This scenario can result in depression, commonly considered to be a mental health problem of great significance for women, or general 20 feelings of powerlessness over oneself and others. Lerner (1985) concurs with Collier's beliefs that socialization and the taboos against women feeling and expressing anger are so power ful that even recognizing anger is not a simple matter. She believes that the direct expression of anger, particularly if directed toward men, is viewed by society as unladylike, unfeminine, unmaternal, sexually unattractive, and strident. She hypothesizes that when women do ex perience anger, they begin to ask themselves questions that serve to block or Invalidate their anger, often leading to guilt, depression, and self-doubt. Lerner considers these responses to be actions taken against the self, rather than behavior leading to personal and social change. Lerner (1985) divides women who do not manage anger effectively into one or both of the following categories: 1. "Nice Lady" Category = women who attempt to avoid anger and conflict at all costs. 2. "Bitch" Category « women who get angry with ease, but participate in ineffective fighting, complaining, and blaming that leads to no constructive resolutions. Lerner considers both styles of managing anger as serving equally well to protect others at the expense of a woman's clarity of self. Both styles also ensure that the relationship or style of communication does not change. Thus, women are left feeling helpless, powerless, and out of control of their lives. This, in turn, has a negative ef fect on a woman's sense of dignity and self-esteem. Lerner (1985) views the ineffective management of anger as a 21 self-defeating and self-perpetuating cycle. Thus, the more women are "nice," give in, and go along, the more they accumulate a storehouse of unconscious anger and rage, and the more they intensify their re pressive efforts in fear of an eruption should the anger begin to be let out, until finally things blow up, thereby confirming their worst fears that anger is indeed irrational and destructive. Lerner (1985) believes that women who do get angry are faced with various labels, e.g., "castrating bitch," that society uses to silence them. These labels and words like unfeminine, nagging, complaining, and bitching symbolize helplessness and powerlessness, not a position of strength and change. Thus, being called a "bitch" might shock a woman into silence or further intensify feelings of injustice and powerlessness, leading to the possibility of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Miller (1983) also identified this situation as a spiraling phenomenon. Anger feels dangerous to women, therefore, they do not express it. Repeated instances of suppressing this anger leads to frustration and inaction which in turn produces feelings of being weak, unworthy, inferior, and leads to a lack of self-esteem. Women may be left feeling full of anger which seems irrational and unwarranted. When it is finally expressed, it may be dismissed as hysterical. Thus, a self-fulfilling prophecy is established. Miller (1976) believes that anger is an important part of women's powerlessness, thus remaining in a powerless position rescues women from fearsome anger. Therefore, experiencing anger can be very frightening for women. Women have limited, if any, opportunity to test and explore their anger which leads to a fear that their anger 22 Is excessive or unjustified (Miller, 1976). Lerner (1985) believes that managing anger effectively goes hand in hand with developing a clear sense of self. Rather than using anger as a challenge to more closely examine the self, Lerner hypothesizes that women instead experience anger actually as blurring what personal clarity they do have. This is compounded by the tendency of women to betray and sacrifice the self In order to preserve harmony with others, a process identified by Lerner as de-selfing. This occurs when too much of one's self Is negotiable under pressure exhibited from significant relationships. This is a problem particularly important for women who in many Instances have been taught that exerting oneself or exhibiting a clear sense of self may threaten or ultimately end a significant relationship. In Gestalt terms, clearly defined self-boundaries are essential to the mental health of the individual; however, women seem to have more difficulty defining their self-boundaries than do most men (Collier, 1982). This belief is echoed by feminist therapists who view most women as overly identified with the wants and needs of others, at the expense of their own development. As is evident from Lerner's (1985) work, the effects of women's inability to manage anger effectively may be directly related to women's self-boundaries, and in fact, may directly inhibit a clear sense of self. As discussed by Westkott (1986), "disentangling women's rela tional skills from their dependency and anger is no easy matter" (p. 219). She feels that a woman's concept of self is affected by the caring and nurturing characteristics of the feminine personality. 23 compounded by dependency and repressed anger. She considers "the conflict between compliant nurturance and underlying self-hatred and rage as the female characterological consequence of the historically created nurturing imperative" (p. 219). Lemkau and Landau (1986) refer to women's cultural prescription of self-denial and fulfillment of the needs of others as the selfless syndrome. They believe that the affective consequences of this syndrome for women is difficulty recognizing and expressing anger, which conse quently finds expression in "nagging," "bitching," passive-aggressive behavior, and/or depression. Kaplan, Brooks, McComb, Shapiro, and Sodano (1983) discussed the "angerogenic" milieu that women live in: The process of suppression of rage is a constant one, as is the fear that the anger may somehow 'leak out' at the ex pense of women's sense of self in relation to others.... Women, then, live in conditions in which the experience and expression of anger can be a threat to their sense of self and their sense of security with others... (p. 33). These conditions can ultimately lead to a lack of awareness on the part of women of the basic feeling of anger itself. Instead, women learn to be more sensitive to the needs and feelings of others and focus on issues that maintain and enhance relational ties. Kaplan et al. identify these qualities as becoming a central part of a woman's self-concept, evolving into her relational self as defined by Gilligan (1982), Miller (1983), and Jordan, Surrey, and Kaplan (1982). Anger and symptomology Miller (1983) believes that the inability to manage anger effectively has had disastrous consequences for women, particularly on 24 a psychological level. Miller views women's traditional roles and Interallzed cultural concepts of femininity as the mechanisms by which the direct expression of anger by women Is seen as pathological. Therefore, "probably the most common occurrence... is that the anger is not conveyed at all. Instead, it is expressed, in the end, via the only remaining route — 'symptoms', psychic or somatic, the most common of which is depression" (p. 3). Lerner (1977) agrees that women have suffered grave psychological consequences through their attempts to comply with the traditional view that truly feminine women are devoid of anger and aggressiveness. She believes that the ability to experience and express a healthy degree of anger is important to adequate psychological functioning. However, she points out that in women, far more than in men, anger frequently becomes thwarted. Inhibited, and misdirected, often leading to a complex cluster of responses including tears, guilt, anxiety, and sadness. Many women remain unaware that these symptoms stem from the suppression or denial of anger. Bernardez-Bonesatti (1978) discussed the negative effects of our culture's attempt to thwart, inhibit, or divert women's expression of anger; Anger and the attempts to eradicate it are responsible for most of the symptoms and dysfunctional behaviors that women present nowadays: from depression to inhibition of action and creativity, from apathy to disturbances in sexual behavior. Anger and the social and personal lack of legitimacy of its expression are also responsible in great measure for self-betrayal, self-depreciation, self- destructlveness, and a chronic, bitter resentment that some women are unable to transcend (p. 217). 25 Bernardez-Bonesattl also believes that women who fear anger frequently express it by tears, guilt, and sorrow, which contaminates or nullifies the expression of anger. She believes that anger Is the "voice of self-respect" and is critical to the development of goal-directed behavior, separation, and self-definition. Lerner (1980) concurs with this opinion that the expression of legitimate anger is a statement of dignity, self-respect, and the willingness to stand alone. This is very difficult for many women who have been taught that their value stems from their ability to love, be loved, and gain the approval of others. Scarf (1980) used a case study to exemplify the "anger-turned- inward" paradigm which results in depression — a way of experiencing anger at someone without actually threatening the relationship with them. This happens because "nice girls don't, as everyone knows, behave aggressively and display assertive, competitive feelings openly (better yet... they don't 'have' any such tendencies in their general personality makeup at all!)" (p. 284). Thus, the origins of depression for women may stem from anger and rage turned Inward, rather than being directed at the person who has enraged them. Recent figures on the prevalence of depressive disorders indicate that a greater number of women suffer from depressive disorders than men. The most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1987), reports that 9% to 26% of females and 5% to 12% of males have had the disorder and 4.5% to 9.3% of females and 2.3% to 3.2% of males currently have the disorder. The disorder is estimated by the DSM-III-R to be twice 26 as common in female that in male adults in industrialized countries. Carmen, Russe, and Miller (1984) support this estimate by citing several studies reporting the two to one ratio (Guttentag, Salasin, & Belle, 1980; President's Commission on Mental Health, 1978; Guttentag & Salasin, 1976; Weissman & Klerman, 1977). They cite Belle's (1980) estimation that in the 24-44 year old age group, the utilization rate in outpatient services for women is triple that for men. Recognizing that depression is primarily a woman's disorder, Kaplan (1986) identified the inhibition of anger (along with vulnerability to loss, inhibition of action and assertion, and low self-esteem) as a central dynamic of depression. She further stated that these factors may be "es sentially distorted aberrations of key aspects of women's normative de velopment" (p. 234). The developmental importance of a woman's relational self, that is, sensitivity to the emotions of others and the maintenance and enhancement of relational ties, can serve to inhibit agentlc action and the expression of anger (Kaplan, Brooks, McComb, Shapiro, & Sodano, 1983). Thus, Kaplan believes that anger is perceived by most women as a threat to the goal of mutually emphatic relationships, and Is therefore constricted, leading to further feelings of Ineffectiveness, until the anger explodes in a manner that may be exaggerated or misdirected. Kaplan considers this pattern In normal women to be greatly exaggerated in women who are depressed, thus enhancing their feelings of worthless- ness. Wetzel (1984) hypothesized that the culture has denied women the right to express anger, which has resulted in suppressed rage and superficiality culminating In depression. This occurs because "the 27 suppression of anger. In turn, exacerbates vulnerability to depres sion for llfe-glvlng energy can be blocked along with the expression of anger" (p. 78). Multiple assessments of hostility In depressed and normal women were obtained by Welssman, Klerman, and Paykel (1971), who found that depressed women showed Increased hostile behavior toward others, particularly their spouse and children. Welssman et al. feel that "treatment geared to helping the patient acknowledge and come to terms with his anger and Its origins and consequences, rather than acting It out, might be effective in rebuilding relationships" (p. 265). Welssman, Fox, and Klerman (1973) compared 29 acutely depressed and 29 matched suicide attempters. They found that "manifest hostility emerged as an important distinguishing characteristic of the suicide attempters, who had pervasive and overtly hostile relationships, a poor long-term work history, antisocial behavior, and were demanding and hostile during psychiatric interview" (p. 450). They concluded that a depressed patient who is angry, complaining, and hostile may be at risk for a suicide attempt. Sex differences were found by Frank, Carpenter, and Kupfer (1988) in a group of patients with recurrent depression. The women in their sample reported expressed anger and hostility, in addition to more appetite and weight Increases and more somatization. However, only expressed anger significantly differentiated women from men. In this study, the women's anger-hostility score was significantly higher than the men's at baseline, but similar at later evaluations. Kellner et al. (1985) observed that hostility and anger have been 28 identified by earlier studies as etiological factors in somatization and hypochondriasis. The etiological factors cited by Kellner et al. included: the obscuring of feelings of repressed rage and hurt pride (Rado, 1956); a concrétisation of fear and self-observation in an aggressive-regressive ambivalent conflict situation (Brautigam, 1956); oral aggressive tendencies with feelings of guilt (Grosch, 1958); a wish to express hostility (Wahl, 1963); deep-seated aggression (Tanabe, 1973); and bereavement, loneliness, or unacceptable aggressive Impulsse (Brown & Vaillant, 1981). Kellner et al. found that somatic symptoms were positively correlated with anger-hostility; however, they were more strongly associated with symptoms of anxiety and depression than hostility. They cite an earlier study by Harris (1951) which concluded that depressed women who are prone to somatic symptoms restrain their anger. Tavris (1982) considered anger to be a social event and not a disease. However, she believes that "contemporary ideas about anger have been fed by the Anger Industry, psychotherapy..." (p. 26). The field of psychotherapy was criticized by Cllne-Naffziger (1974) for reinforcing goals that are oppressive for women. She believes that professionals helping angry women should recognize the reality and justification for women's anger. While discussing the role of sex bias in therapy. Carmen, Russo, and Miller (1984) concluded that: Adjustment to traditional roles is stressed and anger in women is often labeled as pathological rather than understood as a consequence of a devalued position. In general, our culture and our psychological theories have viewed women's 29 anger as Inappropriate.... Thus, most women experience considerable psychic conflict about anger (p. 29). They speculated that most therapists share the dominant cultural view of fearing or condemning anger In women. The Issue of how psychology and other mental health professions have viewed anger In women continues to be a question of prime Im portance. It Is Interesting to note that of the three personality disorders diagnosed more frequently In women (Borderline, Histrionic, and Dependent Personality Disorders), two have some aspect of anger as one of the main diagnostic criteria. The fourth criterion in the diagnosis of a Borderline Personality Disorder Is, "Inappropriate, Intense anger or lack of control of anger" (American Psychiatric Association, 1987, p. 347). The fourth criterion for the diagnosis of a Histrionic Personality Disorder Is, "expresses emotion with in appropriate exaggeration... has temper tantrums" (American Psychiatric Association, 1987, p. 349). The prevalence of these disorders are considered to be common. The question remains, do women deal with anger pathologically, or is the expression of anger by women merely viewed as pathological? Sex Role Issues Throughout the previous sections and topics discussed, the ef fects of sex role Issues have been raised. As is apparent, sex stereotyping is a pervasive phenomenon in American society (Phares, 1984). For many years, psychological attributes of femininity and masculinity were conceptualized along physiological lines and 30 were viewed as a basic genetic destiny (Cook, 1987). As stated by Bern (1981), "Both in psychology and In society at large, femininity and masculinity have long been conceptualized as opposite ends of a single bipolar dimension" (p. 4). This viewpoint began to change when In 1973, Constantinople completed a comprehensive review of the major testa of masculinity-femininity (M-F) and determined that the bi- polarlty assumption of femininity and masculinity was Inadequate. More specifically, Constantinople (1973) provided evidence questioning the validity of the three major assumptions about the M-F construct: 1) that it Is best defined in terms of sex differences in item responses, 2) that it is a single bipolar dimension, and 3) that related to its uni- dlmensional nature, it can be adequately measured by a single score. This opened the door for the work of Bern (1974) and Spence, Helmrelch, and Stapp (1975). These investigators reconceptuallzed femininity and masculinity from their former positions at opposite ends of a single bipolar dimension to orthogonal factors. This new line of thinking produced the concept of androgyny. As discussed by Bem (1981): More recently, however, scholars in a number of disciplines have begun to concern themselves with the concept of psychologi cal androgyny, a term that denotes the integration of femininity and masculinity within a single Individual. The concept of psychological androgyny Implies that it is possible for an individual to be both compassionate and assertive, both expressive and instrumental, both feminine and masculine, depending on the situational ap propriateness of these various modalities (p. 4). Issues related to femininity and masculinity were now viewed from a classification system utilizing four categories: feminine, masculine. 31 androgynous, and undifferentiated. Subjects scoring high on the feminine scale and low on the masculine scale were classified as feminine. Oppositely, subjects scoring high on the masculine scale and low on the feminine scale were classified as masculine. Subjects scoring high on both scales were classified as androgynous and those scoring low on both scales were classified as undifferentiated. The work of Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, and Vogel (1970) raised the idea that our society considered masculine, and not feminine, traits to be associated with good mental health. Bem (1974, 1975, 1981) believes that sex-typed individuals have in ternalized society's sex-typed standards and cultural definitions of sex-appropriate behavior. She stated that: The traditionally sex-typed person is motivated to keep her or his behavior consistent with an idealized image of femininity or masculinity, a goal that she or he presumably accomplishes both by selecting behaviors and attributes that enhance the image and by avoiding behaviors and at tributes that violate the image (1981, p. 4). Thus, "a nonandrogynous sex role can seriously restrict the range of behaviors available to an individual as he or she moves from situation to situation" (Bem, 1975, p. 634). In contrast, the androgynous individual Is less attuned to society's sex-typed standards and sex-appropriate behavior and therefore less likely to regulate her or his behavior accordingly (Bem, 1981). This flexibility of androgynous individuals is considered by many - to be indicative of sound mental health. Phares (1984) summarized the relationships between androgyny and adjustment and found that androgyny has been associated with: 32 1. higher levels of psychosocial development (Waterman & Whltebourne, 1982), 2. happiness; tendency to regard stressful experiences as less undesirable (Shaw, 1982), 3. psychological well-being (hypothesis partially supported) (Lubinski, Tellegen, & Butcher, 1981), 4. being perceived by others as adjusted (Major, Carnevale, & Deaux, 1981), 5. higher self-esteem and perceptions by others as competent (for females only) (Heilbrun, 1981), and 6. adjustment and perceived homeostatic balance with the environment (Flaherty & Dusek, 1980) (p. 606). Thus, it would appear that sex role issues have a significant ef fect on various aspects of mental health. Therefore, it seems ap propriate for research to expand the study of gender differences to include the evaluation of sex-role differences. Based on this premise, the present study has included an examination of both gender and sex-role differences. The original question related to dif ferences in how women and men experience and express anger, has now been expanded to address the effects of sex-role differences. Is it possible that androgyny, and not gender, is the critical variable involved in the healthy expression of anger resulting in sound mental health? 33 Summary Critical factors related to women's life experiences and their re lationship with psychology have gained more attention In recent years. These Issues came Into focus as many of the traditional practices of mainstream psychology related to treating women were being closely scrutinized. This new focus led to the development of a new field In psychology — the psychology of women. Thus, Increased attention and effort was given to the Investigation of sexism In psychotherapy and recommendations for corrective action and ethical Imperatives. New directions and guidelines for counseling women were formulated. One of the key Issues evident throughout the majority of theories related to counseling women Is the expression of anger. An under lying theme related to women and anger Is the differences which exist In this experience for women as compared to men. Carmen, Russo, and Miller (1984) believe that "most women do not aspire to the forms of anger seen In men" (p. 29). They attribute this to the environment and the "dominant cultural fear of anger In women" (p. 29). There also exists a prevailing hypothesis that women have difficulty recog nizing and expressing their anger. This difficulty is viewed as re sulting in psychological symptomology, the most common being depres sion. However, there is little empirical evidence to support this hypothesis. Research reviewed was selected to contribute background information and to highlight Issues surrounding women and anger. Major themes of research reported included: 1) the psychology of women, 2) ethical 34 Issues In the psychology of women, 3) counseling women, 4) women and anger, and 5) sex role issues. There remains a wide gap between re searched hypotheses and mere theoretical speculation. 35 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Much has been written about the psychology of women and treatment methods designed to address significant aspects of women's lives. The expression of anger remains a topic of central Importance. The prevailing belief Is that women experience anger differently than men. It Is also believed that women have more difficulty than men recognizing and expressing anger, resulting In such psychological consequences as depression, guilt, dependency, passive-aggressiveness, conflict avoidance, resentment, and a lack of self-confidence. Authors have proposed various reasons for this difficulty including socializa tion, the psychological consequences of penis-envy, "de-selfIng," the "nurturing Imperative," the "selfless syndrome," living in an "angerogenlc" milieu, and possibly a "distorted aberration of women's normative development." However, the empirical foundation for such speculation is lacking. The central issue remains — do women experience anger differently than men and, are women, unlike men, more likely to express anger ineffectively? As previously indicated, there is a dearth of empirical investiga tions focusing on this issue. Many of the older studies focusing on the psychological treatment of women are plagued by methodological problems, thereby making their conclusions suspect. Very few of the conclusions in the literature reviewed were empirically based. Those that were, focused on the study of hostility. As discussed by Splelberger, Jacobs, Russell, and Crane (1983), "anger, that is, the phenomenological experience of angry feelings, has been largely 36 neglected In psychological research" (p. 160). No empirical research was found which focused on the relationship of anger and Its effects on women. The primary purpose of this study was to Investigate a series of hypotheses related to women's experience and expression of anger. It further examined prevailing beliefs surrounding the psychological consequences of women's expression of anger which have not been empiri cally validated. Finally, the role of gender and sex role differences were examined by including both women and men in the population of study and determining their sex-role classification. Gender differences were examined as a way to investigate the belief that women and men experience anger differently. In their discussion of gender and psychotherapeutic outcome, Orlinsky and Howard (1980) state that "Gender is relevant... Insofar as the lives and persons of women are different from the lives and persons of men" (p. 20). They recommend that research "Identify the descriptive dimen sions of the patient's life and person that are salient for women and men as patients, as well as those that are differentially relevant to men and women in contemporary society" (p. 31). Sex role differences also were examined to provide a more specific and comprehensive study. The goals of the proposed study were twofold. The first goal was to investigate the belief that women have more difficulty than men expressing anger and that they frequently express it through symptoms of depression. This commonly held belief, although cited frequently in the literature, lacks empirical backing. The second goal was to 37 Investigate the conclusion that women who have difficulty expressing anger are subject to negative effects on important aspects of mental health in cluding: a lack of self-confidence, passive-aggressiveness, conflict avoidance, dependency, resentment, and guilt. Again, this conclusion has been frequently presented in the literature without empirical support. The same two questions were addressed from the perspective of sex roles differences. A secondary purpose of the proposed study was to examine gender and sex role differences in the experience and expression of anger. Although a few studies have been conducted using male and female subjects, these studies were limited to data obtained in the development of anger assess ment instruments. These studies did not examine contemporary speculations regarding the psychological consequences of anger expression, nor did they include an examination of the effects of sex role classification. Addi tionally, measures of hostility, aggressiveness, and assertiveness were in cluded in this study to explore possible relationships and gender and sex role differences that may exist between these variables and anger. The specific hypotheses investigated are as follows: 1) Women have more difficulty than men recognizing and ex pressing their anger. Likewise, individuals with a feminine sex-role will have more difficulty than other sex-role types recognizing and expressing their anger. 2) Women are more likely than men to suppress anger. Likewise, individuals with a feminine sex-role are more likely than other sex-role types to suppress anger. 3) Women are more likely than men to control the experience and 38 expression of angry feelings. Likewise, Individuals with a feminine sex-role are more likely than other sex-role types to control the experience of angry feelings. 4) Women are more likely than men to express anger In terms of depressive symptoms. Likewise, Individuals with a feminine sex-role are more likely than other sex-role types to ex press anger In terms of depressive symptoms. 5) Women who have difficulty expressing anger are more likely than men who have difficulty expressing anger to experience negative effects on Important aspects of mental health. These negative effects Include: a lack of self-confidence, de pendency, passive-aggressiveness, conflict avoidance, guilt, and resentment. Likewise, individuals with a feminine sex- role are more likely than other sex-role types to experience negative effects on important aspects of mental health. Past conceptual ambiguity has often led to methodological ambiguity in the measurement of anger. Splelberger, Jacobs, Russell, and Crane (1983) believe that definitions of anger and hostility are often ambiguous and sometimes contradictory. They offer the following defini tion of anger: Anger is generally considered to be a simpler concept than hostility or aggression. The concept of anger usually refers to an emotional state that consists of feelings that vary in intensity, from mild Irritation or annoyance to fury and rage. Although hostility usually Involves angry feelings, this concept has the connotation of a complex set of attitudes that motivate aggressive behaviors directed toward destroying subjects or injuring other people. While anger and hostility refer to feelings and attitudes, the concept of aggression generally implies 39 destruction or punitive behavior directed towards other persons or objects (p. 160). Splelberger et al. (1983) believe that the measurement of anger has not received as much attention as the measurement of hostility and many Instruments confound anger and hostility. The proposed study attempted to avoid this ambiguity by using Instruments specifically designed to measure anger, hostility, aggressiveness, and assertlveness. In this manner, data from all of these areas were examined for possible relationships among these concepts. This, In turn, provided a more comprehensive study of the female experience of anger. 40 METHOD Subjects The subjects for this study were 456 college students from Iowa State University, a large mldwestern university located in central Iowa. Subjects volunteered to participate in the study in return for extra credit in their introductory psychology courses. Originally, 495 students participated; however, the data from 39 subjects were eliminated due to a lack of English fluency, large numbers of missing data points, or scores indicating an invalid or unlnterpretable profile. Demographic data are presented in Table 1 and summarized below. Two hundred and forty-two of the subjects were female (53.2%), 213 were male (46.8%), and one was unspecified. One hundred and seventy- seven subjects were freshmen (39.3%), 141 were sophomores (31.3%), 95 were juniors (21.1%), 35 were seniors (7.8%), two were classified as other (0.4%), and six were unspecified. The racial composition of the sample consisted of 391 caucaslan subjects (85.9%), 16 black subjects (3.5%), two hispanlc subjects (0.4%), 26 native American subjects (5.7%), 15 oriental subjects (3.3%), five subjects classified as other (1.1%), and one subject whose race was left unspecified. Subjects ranged in age from 18 years to 54 years old. Eighty-one subjects were 18 years old (17.8%), 145 were 19 (31.9%), 108 were 20 (23.7%), 51 were 21 (11.2%), 29 were 22 (6.4%), 14 were 23 (3.1%), 4 were 24 (0.9%), 23 were 25 or older (5.1%), and one subject's age was unspecified. Four hundred and thirty- nine subjects were single and never married (94.9%), one subject was 41a Table 1. Demographic characteristics of subjects Grade Frequency Percent Unspecified 6 Freshman 177 39.3 Sophomore 141 31.3 Junior 95 21.1 Senior 35 7.8 Other 2 0.4 Sex Frequency Percent Unspecified 1 — Women 242 53.2 Men 213 46.8 Race Frequency Percent Unspecified 1 — Caucasian 391 85.9 Black 16 3.5 Hispanic 2 0.4 Native American 26 5.7 Oriental 15 3.3 Other 5 1.1 Age Frequency Percent Unspecified 1 — 18 81 17.8 19 145 31.9 20 108 23.7 21 51 11.2 22 29 6.4 23 14 3.1 24 4 0.9 25 or older 23 5.1 Marital status Frequency Percent Unspecified 1 — Single — never married 432 94.9 Single — separated 1 0.2 Divorced 3 0.7 Married 16 3.5 Widowed 1 0.2 Living with significant other 2 0.4 41b Table 1. Continued Father's education Frequency Percent Unspecified 1 — Less than high school 37 8.1 High school graduate 131 28.8 Some college 72 15.8 College graduate 215 47.3 Mother's education Frequency Percent Unspecified 1 — Less than high school 20 4.4 High school graduate 154 33.8 Some college 112 24.6 College graduate 169 37.1 Parental home Frequency Percent Unspecified 5 — Severe discord 10 2.2 Divorce 58 12.9 Death of parent 19 4.2 Death of sibling 8 1.8 Severe economic difficulty 14 3.1 Other stress 13 2.9 None of the above 329 72.9 Place of childhood Frequency Percent Unspecified 2 — Urban 122 26.9 Suburban 157 34.6 Rural 170 37.4 Other 5 1.1 42 single and currently separated (0.2%), three subjects were divorced (0.7%), 16 were married (3.5%), one subject was widowed (0.2%), two were living with a significant other (0.4%), and one subject's marital status was unspecified. Information regarding their parents' level of education Indicated that 37 subjects had a father with less than a high school education (8.1%), 131 subjects had fathers who were high school graduates (28.8%), 72 subjects had a father with some college (15.8%), 215 had a father who was a college graduate (47.3%), and one subject failed to specify their father's education level. Twenty students had a mother with less than a high school education (4.4%), 154 subjects had mothers who were high school graduates, 112 had mothers with some college (24.6%), 169 had mothers who were college graduates (37.1%), and one subject failed to specify their mother's education level. Information about stressors in their parental home indicated that 10 subjects described their parental home as having severe dis cord (2.2%), 58 subjects identified divorce (12.9%), 19 had ex perienced the death of a parent (4.2%), eight had experienced the death of a sibling (1.8%), 14 subjects identified severe economic difficulty present in their parent's home (3.1%), 13 subjects listed other unspecified stressors as being present in their parental home, and 329 (72.9%) subjects reported none of the above stressors as being present in their parental home (72.9%). Five subjects failed to respond to this question. Information about the location of subjects' place of childhood revealed that 122 subjects grew up in an urban area (26.9%), 157 grew 43 up In a suburban area (34.6%), 170 grew up In a rural area (37.4%), five grew up in another type of setting (1.1%), and two subjects failed to specify their place of childhood. Materials A test booklet was completed by each subject (see Appendix A). The first page of this booklet contained a consent form which was completed by all participants. The next page consisted of a "feedback sheet" designed for any subject wishing to obtain detailed Information regarding the study and feedback regarding their individual results. The third page provided instructions for completing the test booklet. The remainder of the testing booklet consisted of several instruments Including: a demographic questionnaire, State-Trait Anger Scale (Spielberger et al., 1979), Anger Expression Scale (Spielberger, Johnson, Russell, Crane, Jacobs, & Worden, 1985), Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961), Bem Sex-Role Inventory (Bern, 1974), Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (Buss & Durkee, 1957), and the Interpersonal Behavior Survey (Mauger, Adklnson, Zoss, Firestone, & Hook, 1980). A brief description of each instrument is provided in the following sections. Demographic questionnaire This Instrument was designed by the researcher to collect demographic information on all subjects, including sex, race, age, marital status. 44 parents' educational level, characteristics of parental home, and place of childhood. State-Trait Anger Scale (STAS) A rational-empirical approach was used In developing the STAS, which was designed to assess the Intensity of anger as an emotional state and individual differences in proneness to anger as a personality trait (Spielberger, 1980; Spielberger, Jacobs, Russell, & Crane, 1983; Spielberger, Johnson, Russell, Crane, Jacobs, & Worden, 1985). Thus, Spielberger and his colleagues (1980, 1983, 1985) defined anger by dividing it into state (S-Anger) and trait anger (T-Anger): State anger (S-Anger) was defined as an emotional state or condition that consists of subjective feelings of tension, annoyance, irritation, fury, and rage, with concommltant activation or arousal of the automatic nervous system.... S-Anger can vary in intensity and fluctuate over time as a function of perceived affronts or injustice, or frustration resulting from the blocking of goal-directed behavior. Trait anger (T-Anger) was defined in terms of individual differences in the frequency that S-Anger was experienced over time... persons high in T-Anger were more likely to perceive a wide range of situations as anger-provoking (e.g., annoying. Irritating, frustrating), and to respond to such situations with elevations in state anger (Spielberger, Jacobs, Russell, & Crane, 1983, p. 166). A preliminary form of the STAS was administered to college students and Navy recruits (Barker, 1979; Westberry, 1980) to facilitate final item selection. Items with the best psychometric properties and the highest Internal consistency as reflected in item-remainder correla tions, were used in the final form (Spielberger et al., 1985). Items were also selected based on their relatively low correlations with measures of anxiety and curiosity (Spielberger et al., 1983). To ensure a high degree of Internal consistency In the T-Anger 45 scale for both males and females, Item-remainder correlations for both sexes were computed separately (Splelberger, 1980). The mean, standard deviation, and alpha coefficient for male college students were 31.04, 7.30, and .87, respectively. Female college students obtained similar results; mean " 30.96, standard deviation - 7.46, and an alpha coefficient of .87. Similar data also were collected on Navy recruits. Male recruits obtained a mean of 31.66, standard deviation of 7.63, and an alpha coefficient of .87. Female recruits obtained a mean of 30.10, a standard deviation of 6.92, and an alpha coefficient of .84. In developing the S-Anger scale, data were obtained from male and female Navy recruits. Males obtained a mean of 27.14, a standard deviation of 9.39, and an alpha coefficient of .93. Females obtained a mean of 23.56, a standard deviation of 10.52 and an alpha coefficient of .93. Correlations on individual S-Anger and T-Anger items with measures of anxiety (Splelberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970) and curiosity (Splelberger, Peters, & Fraln, 1981) were substantially higher than origi nally anticipated by the test authors, particularly for the S-Anger items. The median item-correlation between the S-Anger scale and S-Anxlety was .49 for males and .52 for females. The correlation of S-Anger with S-Curiosity was -.42 for males and -.16 for females. The median item- correlations for the T-Anger scale and T-Anxiety were .30 for males and .19 for females. The correlations of T-Anger with T-Curloslty were -.23 for males and -.21 for females. Splelberger et al. (1983) Interpreted these findings as suggestive of "an intrinsic relationship between anger and anxiety that cannot readily be eliminated from 46 psychometric measures of these constructs" (p. 169). The final form of the STAS, consisting of 30 Items, was used In the present study. On the first 15 Items measuring state anger, subjects Indicated their present feelings by responding to a series of statements using a 4-polnt scale; "not at all" (1), "somewhat" (2), "moderately so" (3), and "very much so" (4). The remaining 15 Items measured trait anger. Subjects Indicated how they generally feel by responding to a series of statements also using a 4-polnt scale; "almost never" (1), "sometimes" (2), "often" (3), and "almost always" (4). Scale scores were computed by summing the scores for each of the 15 Items comprising each scale. Possible scores for each scale of the STAS range from a minimum of 15 to a maximum of 10. Anger Expression (AX) Scale Splelberger designed the AX as "a unldlmenslonal self-report rating scale to assess anger expression as a personality trait" (Splelberger et al., 1985, p. 14). The definition of anger expression used in this scale was developed after the authors examined the literature in this area: Anger expression is implicitly defined by Funkenstein et al. (1954), Harburg et al. (1973), and Gentry et al. (1982) as a unldlmenslonal construct. In developing a scale to as sess this construct, low scores should indicate extreme 'anger in,' resulting from marked suppression and inhibi tion of anger, and high scores should indicate extreme 'anger out' which may be reflected in a variety of aggressive behaviors (Splelberger et al., 1985, p. 13). A preliminary version of the AX Scale was administered to 1114 male and female high school students. Based on the results of this 47 study, three items were eliminated, item-remainder correlations for each of the 30 AX items were computed, and a factor analysis completed to determine if meaningful subscales existed. Spielberger et al. (1985) concluded that the AX items were tapping two relatively independent underlying dimensions, i.e., anger-in and anger-out, rather than a unldimensional, bipolar measure of anger expression. Therefore, further analyses were completed to develop separate subscales for measuring anger-In and anger-out. Eight items with uniformly high loadings for both sexes on the Anger/In factor (.52 to .72) and negligible loadings on the Anger/Out factor (-.16 to .17) were selected for the Anger/In subscale. Similarly, eight items with uniformly high loadings for both sexes on the Anger/Out factor (.44 to .72) and negligible loadings on the Anger/In factor (-.12 to .17) were selected for the Anger/Out subscale. The factor analysis also indicated that a third factor was evident which related to anger control and/or resistance to becoming angry (Spielberger et al., 1985). Pollans (1983) Investigated this factor in a study of college students and found evidence of an anger control factor for males, but not for females. The results indicated that for females, the anger control and Anger/Out Items load on the same factor, suggesting that college women who overtly express anger have stronger control over their angry feelings. A total anger expression score also Is generated by the Instrument as a linear combination of the three subscales. Internal consistency was evaluated by computing alpha coefficients and item-remainder correlations. The alpha coefficients for the AX/EX 48 scale were .80 for males and .77 for females, for the AX/In subscale .84 for males and .81 for females, and for the AX/Out subscale .73 for males and .75 for females. The Item-remainder correlations for the AX/EX scale were heterogeneous, ranging from .14 to .56 (Splel- berger et al., 1985). The median Item-correlation was .53 for the Anger/In subscale and .435 for the Anger/Out subscale. Evidence for convergent and divergent validity of the AX and Its subscales was reported by Splelberger et al. (1985) using the Harburg et al. (1973) questionnaire and Splelberger et al. (1979) State-Trait Personality Inventory. Splelberger et al. (1985) con cluded: In all six analyses, the highly significant F-ratlos for the Anger In/out variables Indicated that students classified as 'anger out' on the basis of how they Indicated they would cope with the anger-provoking situations described In the vignettes had substantially higher AX/Out and AX/EX total scores, and substantially lower scores on the Ax/ln sub- scale, than students classified as 'anger-in'.... The analysis of the AX scores of students classified as 'anger-in' and 'anger-out' on the basis of the modified Harburg procedure provides evidence of the concurrent and construct validity of the AX and its subscales. Differences in the AX scores of males and females classified as 'anger- In' and 'anger-out' according to the Harburg criteria, especially, the Anger by Sex Interactions, suggest that males and females may respond differently to different types of anger-provoking situations (p. 20). Further evidence of the convergent and divergent validity of the AX and its subscales was reported by Splelberger et al. (1985) in relation to the State-Trait Personality Inventory. Moderately high correlations of the AX/ln and AX/Out subscales with the State-Trait Personality Inventory trait anger measures were reported, ranging from .24 to .58. Correlations of the AX scales with the STPI state anger 49 measures were relatively small, ranging from .09 to .24 (Splelberger et al., 1985). The ÂX/In and AX/Out subscales were more highly cor related with the STPI anger scales than was the AX/EX total anger expres sion scale (Splelberger et al., 1985). The correlations of all three AX measures with the STPI Trait and State Curiosity scales were essentially zero (-.08 to .06), providing some evidence of the divergent validity of the AX scales. Correlations of the AX scales were also computed with trait anxiety (.00 to .30) and state anxiety (-.14 to .28). The final form of the AX was used In the present study which con sists of 24 Items designed to measure "how people generally react or behave when they feel angry or furious" (Splelberger, 1986). Subjects Indicated how often they generally reacted or behaved when angry or furious In the manner described In each statement. Subjects respond using a 4-polnt scale, "almost never" (1), "sometimes" (2), "often" (3), and "almost always" (4). The AX Scale yields four different scores: 1) the anger expres sion score (AX/EX) — a general Index of how often anger Is aroused and expressed or suppressed, 2) anger-out (AX/Out) — the tendency to express anger toward other people or objects in the environment, 3) anger-in (AX/In) — the tendency to experien-e anger but to hold it in (suppress), and 4) anger-control (AX/Con) — the tendency to control the experience and expression of anger. It should be noted that the AX/EX scale Is calculated by combining the AX/Out and the AX/In score, subtracting the AX/Con score from that total, and adding a constant (16) to eliminate negative scores. 50 Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI) A rational-empirical approach was used by Buss and Durkee (1957) In the development of the BDHI. Good test-retest reliability data have been reported Including test-retest reliability coefficients ranging from .64 to .82 (Blagglo, Suppléé, & Curtis, 1981) and .82 for the Total Hostility score (Splelberger et al., 1983). The validity of the BDHI was discussed by Splelberger et al. (1983): Evidence of the validity of the BDHI has been reported In studies of the perception of violence (Petzel & Michaels, 1973), the effects of smoking deprivation on hostility and aggression (Schechter & Rand, 1974), and aggressive behavior as reflected In the administration of shock (Knott, 1970). The BDHI has also proved useful in the assessment of hostility in male psychiatric patients (Young, 1976), and in violent and nonviolent chronic alcohol abusers (Renson, Adams, & Tlnklenberg, 1978) (p. 163). Blagglo et al. (1981) concluded that "the BDHI provides a global impression of hostile feelings and tendency to act-out anger but the subscales do not seem to possess a high degree of discriminant validity" (p. 647). Buss and Durkee (1957) reported that "none of the women's correlations and only two of the men's Interscale correlations, are above .50, which suggests that the various scales are tapping at least partially Independent behaviors" (p. 347). The correlation matrices for men and women as reported by Buss and Durkee are presented in Table 2. The BDHI consists of 75 statements designed to assess various as pects of hostility. Subjects respond to a series of statements by indicating if the statement is true or false as it applies to them selves. The BDHI assesses seven dimensions of hostility: Table 2. Correlational matrices for the Buss Durkee Hostility Inventory Table of Intercorrelatlons for Women Indirect Verbal Variable Assault hostility Irritability Negativism Resentment Suspicion hostility Indirect hostility .38 Irritability .30 .31 Negativism .27 .34 .29 Resentment .14 .23 .30 .23 Suspicion .11 .19 .30 .15 .45 Verbal hostility .37 .19 .44 .30 .22 .21 Guilt -.07 .05 .16 .01 .33 .27 .10 Table of Intercorrelatlons for Men Indirect Verbal Variable Assault hostility Irritability Negativism Resentment Suspicion hostility Indirect hostility .28 Irritability .32 .44 Negativism .30 .27 .20 Resentment .16 .33 .44 .31 Suspicion .11 .27 .26 .38 .58 Verbal hostility .40 .40 .66 .25 .37 .21 Guilt -.03 .28 .24 .08 .27 .25 .16 52 assault, indirect hostility. Irritability, negativism, resentment, suspicion, and verbal hostility. An additional scale measuring guilt is also Included. Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) The revised version of the BDI Is a self-admlnlstered measure of an Individual's depression developed by Beck (1978). The BDI has been widely used for clinical and research purposes since its introduction by Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, and Erbaugh (1961). In their study of psychiatric patients. Beck et al. (1961) reported split-half reliability of .93. Beck and Steer (1984) conducted a study of the original and revised forms using psychiatric patients and concluded that both pos sessed high levels of internal consistency. The alpha coefficients for this sample were .88 for the 1961 form and .86 for the 1978 ver sion. Reynolds and Gould (1981) investigated the psychometric charac teristics of the standard and short form BDI with substance abusers. They reported adequate Internal consistency reliability for both forms; .85 for the standard form and .83 for the short form. Their correla tional results with criterion variables also supported the validity of both BDI forms. Significant correlations were obtained between the standard and short forms and the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (1974) (rs • .57 and .58, £ < .001) and the UCLA Loneliness Scale developed by Russell, Peplau, and Ferguson (1978) (rs = .42 and .47, 2 < .01). Based on these results, Reynolds and Gould (1981) concluded that as validity coefficients, the correlations between the BDI, Zung, 53 and UCLA Loneliness Scale were "quite substantial," thereby supporting convergent validity. Campbell, Burgess, and Finch (1984) cited many studies reflecting the moderate to high validity coefficients usually obtained using the BDl: For example, in relation to clinical observer ratings of depression, the BDI correlates from .65 (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961; Metcalfe & Goldman, 1964) to .77 (Beck & Beamesderfer, 1974); in relation to other scale and inventory measures, Schwab, Blalow, and Holzer (1967) found .75 correlation with the Hamilton Rating Scale (HRS) (p. 992) Schaefer et al. (1985) Investigated the Internal consistency of the BDl, reporting an alpha coefficient of .94 for psychiatric patients and .88 for chemical dependency patients. All correlations between the Beck, Zung, and MMPl depression scales were significant at the .05 level. For the purposes of this study, the revised version of the BDI (Beck, 1978) was used. With this form, subjects respond to a series of 21 items, each item containing a series of four statements. Subjects are instructed to circle the number beside the one statement in each group that describes the way they have been feeling during the past week. If subjects find that several of the statements in a group apply equally well to themselves, they are allowed to circle more more than one. Scores for each item are totalled, based on an Intensity rating of zero to three. This total is then used to calculate the depression score. Thus, the potential range of scores is 0 to 63 with higher scores reflecting the more severe depression. The specific symptom or attitude tapped by each item Is as follows: 1) sadness, 54 2) pessimism, 3) sense of failure, 4) dissatisfaction, 5) guilt, 6) expectations of punishment, 7) self-dlsllke, 8) self-accusation, 9) suicidal Ideas, 10) crying, 11) Irritability, 12) social withdrawal, 13) Indeclsiveness, 14) body Image change, 15) work difficulty, 16) Insomnia, 17) fatigability, 18) loss of appetite, 19) weight loss, 20) somatic preoccupation, and 21) loss of libido. Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) The BSRI was developed by Bem (1974) to treat "masculinity and femininity as two independent dimensions, thereby making it possible to characterize a person as masculine, feminine, or 'androgynous' as a function of the difference between his or her endorsement of masculine and feminine personality characteristics" (p. 155). The BSRI "was designed to implement empirical research on psychological androgyny" (Bem, 1981, p. 4). Bem (1979) originally developed the BSRI based on two theoretical assumptions: 1) the culture has clustered a quite heterogeneous collection of characteristic and desirable at tributes into two mutually exclusive categories for each sex, and 2) individuals differ in the extent to which they utilize these at tributes as idealized standards. Items for the BSRI were selected on the basis of judges' ratings of the culturally defined desirability of various attributes for each sex, rather than on the previous method of establishing sex differences through self-report (Bem, 1979). The original BSRI contains 60 personality characteristics; 20 that were stereotypically feminine and 20 that served as filler Items. The initial BSRI used the filler items to yield a measure of a subject's 55 tendency to respond In a socially desirable fashion. Based on research results, this procedure was later abandoned. Bern (1981) instituted four major changes In the original BSRl: 1. A short, 30-ltem form was developed. 2. The androgyny t-ratlo originally used to classify Individuals was eliminated. 3. The recommendation that subjects be classified Into four distinct sex-role groups. I.e., feminine, masculine, androgynous, and undifferentiated, based on a median split was advocated. 4. The filler items served only as context for the feminine and masculine items. The instrument is arranged so the first 30 items comprise the short form. Subjects are asked to indicate on a seven-point scale how true each characteristic is of them. The scale ranges from 1 ("never or almost never true") to 7 ("always or almost always true"). A score can then be obtained for each subject on both the femininity and masculinity scales and their sex-role classification determined based on a median split. Researchers can use the median scores from Bern's normative sample or utilize the median splits from their own sample population. In fact, Bern (1981) advocates utilizing the sample's own medians if the sample is large enough and contains both males and females. Based on the median splits, four sex-role classifications are possible: feminine, masculine, androgynous, and undifferentiated. Subjects scoring high on the feminine scale and low on the masculine scale are classified as feminine. Oppositely, 56 subjects scoring high on the masculine scale and low on the female scale are classified as masculine. Subjects scoring high on both scales are classified as androgynous and those scoring low on both scales are classified as undifferentiated. Bem (1981) reported the psychometric analyses of the BSRI on two samples of subjects. The first sample Included 279 females and 444 males and the second sample Included 340 females and 476 males. Both samples consisted of undergraduate students In Introductory Psychology at Stanford University who completed the Original and Short BSRI. The first sample was obtained in 1973 and the second in 1978. On the Original BSRI, for the first sample, the coefficient alpha scores for the femininity and masculinity scales were .75 and .87 for females and .78 and .86 for males. For the second sample, coeffi cient alpha scores for the femininity and masculinity scales were .78 and .86 for females and .78 and .87 for males. On the Short BSRI, for the first sample, the coefficient alpha scores for the femininity and masculinity scales were .84 and .84 for females and .87 and .85 for males. For the second sample, coeffi cient alpha scores for the femininity and masculinity scales were .84 and .86 for females and .87 and .85 for males. Test-retest reliabilities for the femininity and masculinity scores were computed using product-moment correlations between the first and second test administrations. For the Original BSRI, the femininity and masculinity scores for females were .82 and .94 and for males .89 and .76. For the Short BSRI, the femininity and masculinity scores for the females were .85 and .91 and for males .91 and .76. 57 The femininity and/or masculinity scales of the BSRI have been correlated with gender-related behaviors in numerous validation studies (Lippa, 1985). The BSRI has also been reported by Lippa (1985) to display good Internal consistency and reliability. Factor analytic studies of the BSRI typically report that the scales are not factorlally pure (Lippa, 1985). Payne (1985) criticized the BSRI scales for being factorlally complex and not covering a full range of ways in which males and females can differ stereotypically in our society. He also questioned the notion that they tap the gender-based schematic processing described by Bern. Payne (1985) advocated the use of the short form: The Short BSRI therefore is not just a short form of the Original BSRI, it is a psychometrlcally superior, factorlally purer index of 'instrumental' and 'expressive' traits. It should be chosen over the Original BSRI, and not just for 'convenience' in scoring (p. 179). Payne (1985) described the Short BSRI as having good test-retest and internal consistency reliability. The present study utilized the short form of the BSRI. Subjects were classified by sex role based on the median splits of the present study's sample. Interpersonal Behavior Survey (IBS) The IBS was developed by Mauger, Adklnson, Zoss, Firestone, and Hook (1980) "to distinguish assertive behaviors from aggressive behaviors and to sample subclasses of these behaviors" (Mauger & Adklnson, 1980, p. 1). Scales forming four major categories are Included in the IBS: 1) validity, 2) aggressiveness, 3) assertlveness, and 4) relationship. The validity scores, which reflect the subject's test-taking attitudes. 58 denial, Infrequency, and Impression management. The aggressiveness scales measure the general response class of aggressiveness Including: general aggressiveness, hostile stance, expression of anger, disregard for rights, verbal aggressiveness, physical aggressiveness, and passive aggressiveness. The assertlveness scales measure the general response class of assertlveness Including: general assertlveness, self- confidence, Initiating assertlveness, defending assertlveness, frank ness, praise, requesting help, and refusing demands. Three scales designed to examine relationship factors are also Included — conflict avoidance, dependency, and shyness. The IBS consists of 272 true/ false Items. The reliability of the IBS was determined using a sample of college students. A test-retest format over a two-day and ten-week time period was used In conjunction with the coefficient alpha Internal consistency procedure (Mauger & Âdklnson, 1980). A review by Franzol (1978) con cluded : The test-retest reliabilities range from the low .70s to the mid .90s and compare well with other scales In the field. The IBS scales appear to have adequate Internal consistency except for the Refusing Demands scale, where the reliability coefficients for the long and short versions were .33 and .11... a tentative conclusion Is that the IBS generally has good reliability and internal consistency. Another review by Hutzell (1985) Indicated: The currently available Information appears to support the reliability of the IBS. Internal consistency coefficients (coefficient alpha) are reasonable, though not exceptional, ranging from .52 to .88 (M = .71) for the full versions of the scales at cross-validation. Test-retest reliability information is encouraging, with correlations ranging from .71 to .96 (M " .89) at a 2-day inter-test Interval and from .80 to .93 (M » .89) at a 10-week Interval. Differences 59 between scale means from first to second testing did not show statistical significance (p. 701). The convergent and discriminant validity of the IBS scales have been Investigated by Mauger and Adklnson (1980) by comparison with several well-known personality Inventories, I.e., California Personality Inventory (CPI) (Cough, 1975), Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPFS) (Edwards, 1959), College Self-Expresslon Scale (Galassl, DeLo, Galassl, & Bastlen, 1974), Rathus Assertlveness Schedule (Rathus, 1973), Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (Buss & Durkee, 1957), Inter personal Checklist (ICL) (Leary, 1957), Eysenck Personality Question naire (EPQ) (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975), Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) (Hathaway & McKlnley, 1951), and the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (Fltts, 1965). Franzol (1978) reported that "In general, these relations are In the expected direction and thus support the scales' validities" (p. 700). Hutzell (1985) concluded: Factor analytic investigation appears to support the premise that the IBS scales of assertion and aggression evaluate separate response classes... investigation of the correlation of IBS scores with the scores of other personality, assertlve ness, and aggressiveness Inventories... the overall results suggest a reasonable degree of empirical validity as well as construct validity for many of the IBS scales... concur rent validation of some of the IBS scales... has been conducted, but the results are presented in too Incomplete a manner to be useful at this time... validation of the IBS against behavioral criteria is conspicuously absent... (p. 701). Procedure Subjects signed up for this study on a "Psychology Research Participation Scheduling Sheet" posted in the Psychology Department. 60 This sheet specified the date, time, and location of the study. Sub jects completed questionnaires in groups of approximately 25 persons. Instructions for the test booklet administration are outlined in Appendix B. Subjects first completed a consent form for participation in this study and then were given Information on how to obtain feed back regarding the results of their performance and detailed information regarding the study itself. Subjects were asked to complete all Instruments in the test booklet, according to the instructions contained therein. As previously indicated, the instruments included in the test booklet were the demographic questionnaire, State-Trait Anger Scale (STAS), Anger Expression (AX) Scale, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI), Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI), and the Interpersonal Behavior Survey (IBS). The instruments were presented in combinations following a modified counterbalanced design to control for the effects of fatigue and instrument order. 61 RESULTS The hypotheses were analyzed using two different methods of determining sex-role classification, and, therefore, two different methods of analysis. In each case, however, data were analyzed with the Statistical Analysis System (SAS, 1985) utilizing General Linear Models (GLM) programs. The first method utilized Bern's procedure of sex-role classification based on a median split. In this procedure. Indices of masculinity and femininity were used to determine dichotomized variables of femininity, masculinity, androgyny, and undifferentiated. Bem (1981) suggests that with a large enough sample. It Is desirable to classify subjects utilizing the sample medians, rather than the median scores of her normative sample. The median scores for the present sample were used. They were 5.4 for the femininity scale and 5.0 for the masculinity scale. These scores are In fact very similar to the median scores obtained by Bem in her normative sample (femininity = 5.5, masculinity = 4.8). The results generally were analyzed with separate univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs), and significant univariate differences were further explored, when necessary, with Duncan's Multiple Range Test, corrected for unequal ii. The second method utilized multiple regression analyses as advocated by Strahan (1982), This method uses the femininity and masculinity scores and the product of these scores as predictor variables. Thus, the femininity and masculinity scores are analyzed as continuous, rather than discrete variables. This method allows for "the added statistical 62 power that continuous rather than discrete measurement provides, though at the expense of added analytic complexity" (Strahan, 1982, p. 6). The reader Is reminded that the data from 39 subjects were eliminated due to the following reasons: 1) lack of English fluency, 2) large numbers of missing data points, and 3) denial, frequency, and Impression management scores Indicating an Invalid or unlnterpretable profile, as evidenced by T scores above 70 on the IBS validity scales. Missing data points for subjects who failed to answer a minimal number of Items were replaced with their sex's average score for that Item. The means and standard deviations for the entire sample are listed In Table 3. Analyses of Variance The first hypothesis, women and feminine sex-role types have more difficulty than men and other sex-role types recognizing their anger, was analyzed using a two-way ANOVA defined by sex of subject (male, female) and sex-role classification (feminine, masculine, androgynous, undifferentiated). Each subject's sex-role type was determined by the results of the BSRI. The dependent variables for these analyses were trait anger and anger expression as defined by anger-out. Subjects' level of trait anger was assessed by the STÀS. This measured individual differences in anger proneness as a personality trait. The level of anger expression was assessed using the anger-out measure from the AX Scale. This provided an index of a subject's tendency to express anger toward other people or objects in the environment (anger-out). 63 Table 3. Means and standard deviations for the total sample Variable N Mean Standard deviation Femininity (RSA) 448 5.33 0.72001359 Masculinity (RSB) 450 4.93 0.86165532 State Anger (STASS) 456 20.35 7.49410893 Trait Anger (STAST 456 30.34 7.27824269 Anger-out (AXOUT) 456 15.78 3.93049062 Anger-in (AXIN) 456 17.61 4.23193891 Anger control (ANCON) 456 23.14 4.85595082 Anger expression (AXEX) 456 26.24 9.28711506 Depression (BDI) 456 7.76 6.91056607 Denial (DENIAL) 456 2.06 1.50687487 Infrequency (INFREQ) 456 1.31 1.44573457 Impression management (IMPRESS) 456 12.38 3.78534051 Aggression (AGGRESS) 456 9.64 4.03637786 Hostility (HOSTILST) 456 9.37 4.62722599 Anger expression (ANGEREX) 456 6.33 4.42983340 Disregard (DISREGD) 456 3.01 2.14372597 Verbal aggressiveness (VERBALAG) 456 4.85 2.57569332 Physical aggressiveness (PHYSAGG) 456 3.27 2.57754144 Passive aggressiveness (PASSIVAG) 456 10.89 5.62148890 Assertiveness (ASSERT) 456 13.75 4.33412166 Self-confidence (SELFCONF) 456 10.39 3.58325476 Initiating assertiveness (INITASS) 456 9.38 3.91947516 Defending assertiveness (DEFENASS) 456 12.85 3.75685736 Frankness (FRANK) 456 6.95 2.58296592 Praise (PRAISE) 456 5.60 2.08803730 Requesting help (REQUESTHE) 456 5.20 1.68381624 Refusing demands (REFUSDEM) 456 4.01 1.42653122 Conflict avoidance (CONFLAVD) 456 10.43 4.39670502 Dependency (DEPENDCY) 456 11.53 4.80238709 Shyness (SHY) 456 6.84 5.36314521 Assaultiveness (ASSAULT) 456 3.41 2.52204852 Indirect hostility (INDIRHOS) 456 4.66 1.96880310 Irrativillty (IRRITBLE) 456 5.82 2.49802312 Negativeness (NEGATIVE) 456 2.22 1.26940690 Resentment (RESENT) 456 3.42 2.11794935 Suspicion (SUSPICIN) 456 3.81 2.26282946 Verbal hostility (VERBLHOS) 456 6.81 2.75193466 Guilt (GUILT) 456 4.63 2.19808419 Total hostility (TOTLHOST) 456 34.79 11.28281453 64 The results of the ANOVÂ for trait anger revealed a significant effect for sex role (£(3,399) • 3.83, £ < .0100), as presented in Table 4. This indicated that subject's sex role classification was associated with individual differences in anger proneness as a personality trait. As reported in Table 5, Duncan's Multiple Range Test indicated that subjects with a masculine sex role denoted a higher level of trait anger than subjects with a feminine, undifferentiated, or androgynous sex role. The latter groups did not differ significantly from each other. The results of the ANOVA for anger-out also revealed a significant effect for sex role (F(3,399) • 6.64, £ < .0002), as illustrated in Table 4. This Indicated that sex role was associated with the tendency to express anger toward other people or objects in the environment. As reported in Table 6, Duncan's Multiple Range Test indicated that subjects with a masculine sex role were significantly different from the other sex role types. These subjects scored highest on the anger-out scale suggesting a greater tendency to express anger outwardly. Sub jects with an androgynous sex role obtained the next highest score, which was significantly greater than the remaining two types. Un differentiated and feminine sex role types scored lowest on the anger- out scale and did not differ from one another. The second hypothesis, women and feminine sex-role types are more likely than men and other sex-role types to suppress anger, was evaluated using an ANOVA In which gender and sex-role type were the independent variables and suppression of anger was the dependent variable. The Anger-In subscale of the AX Scale was used to measure 65 Table 4. Analysis of variance for hypothesis one Relationship of Sex and Sex Role to Trait Anger Source of Degrees Type III F Level of variation of freedom sum of squares value significance Sex 1 28.04 0.54 0.4615 Sex role 3 593.58 3.83 0.0100 Sex X sex role 3 72.30 0.47 0.7054 Relationship of Sex and Sex Role to Anger Expression Source of Degrees Type III F Level of variation of freedom sum of squares value significance Sex 1 23.42 1.58 0.2091 Sex role 3 294.65 6.64 0.0002 Sex X sex role 3 19.46 0.44 0.7258 66 Table 5. Significant differences in the means for sex role classifica tion for trait anger Sex role N Mean Code Masculine 87 32.63 A Feminine 87 30.00 B Undifferentiated 118 29.70 B Androgynous 115 29.70 B Note: Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. 67 Table 6. Significant differences In the means for sex role classifica tion for anger expression Sex role N Mean Code (tesculine 87 17. 34 A Androgynous 115 16. 25 B Undifferentiated 118 14. 97 C Feminine 87 14. 89 C Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. 68 the suppression of anger which Is reflected by anger-In; the tendency to experience anger, but to hold It In or suppress It. The results of the ANOVA for the second hypothesis revealed a significant effect for sex role (£(3,399) - 3.88, £ < .0094), as presented In Table 7. This Indicated that sex role was associated with the tendency to experience anger, but to hold It In or suppress It. As reported In Table 8, Duncan's Multiple Range Test Indicated that un differentiated and feminine sex role types denoted a greater tendency to hold In or suppress angry feelings than did androgynous subjects. The responses of subjects with masculine sex roles did not differ from those in the other three groups. The third hypothesis was that women and feminine sex-role types are more likely than men and other sex-role types to control the ex perience of angry feelings. This hypothesis was evaluated using an ANOVA in which gender and sex-role type were the Independent variables and anger control was the dependent variable. The Anger Control sub- scale of the AX Scale was used to determine subjects' level of anger control; the tendency to control the experience of anger. The results of the ANOVA for the third hypothesis also revealed a significant effect for sex role (£(3,399) = 7.16, £ < .0001), as presented in Table 9. This indicated that sex role was associated with the tendency to control the experience and expression of anger. As reported in Table 10, Duncan's Multiple Range Test indicated that androgynous and feminine sex role types reported a significantly greater tendency to control anger than did subjects with a masculine sex role. Scores for androgynous sex roles were also significantly 69 Table 7. Analysis of variance for hypothesis two Relationship of Sex and Sex Role to Anger Suppression Source of Degrees Type III F Level of variation of freedom sum of squares value significance Sex 1 0.60 0.04 0.8510 Sex role 3 197.16 3.88 0.0094 Sex x sex role 3 50.27 0.99 0.3979 70 Table 8. Significant differences In the means for sex role classifica tion for anger suppression Sex role N Mean Code Undifferentiated 118 18, .27 A Feminine 87 18. ,23 A Masculine 87 17. ,48 AB Androgynous 115 16. 49 B Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. 71 Table 9. Analysis of variance for hypothesis three Relationship of Sex and Sex Role to Anger Control Source of Degrees Type III F Level of variation of freedom sum of squares value significance Sex 1 27.10 1.16 0.2822 Sex role 3 501.79 7.16 0.0001 Sex X sex role 3 66.67 0.95 0.4160 72 Table 10. Significant differences in the tlon for anger control means for sex role classlfica- Sex role N Mean Code Androgynous 115 24.40 A Feminine 87 23.60 AB Undifferentiated 118 22.80 BC Masculine 87 21.49 C Note: Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. 73 greater than those associated with undifferentiated sex roles. The fourth hypothesis was that women and feminine sex-role types are more likely than men and other sex-role types to express anger In terms of depressive symptoms. The model for the analysis of this hypothesis was a factorial design defined by sex of subject, sex-role type, level of trait anger (high, average, low), level of anger-in (high, average, low) and level of anger-out (high, average, low). The high and low classifications for trait anger, anger-in, and anger-out were determined by those subjects scoring above the 85th percentile rank or below the 15th percentile rank, based on Spielberger's (1980, 1986) normative data for these variables. A similar procedure was used by Spielberger and London (1982) relative to trait anger In their study of lethal type-Â anger. The dependent variable was depression reflected in BDI scores. A significant Interaction of any of the measures of anger with sex or sex role, with means in the appropriate order, would be consistent with this hypothesis. The results of the ANOVA for the fourth hypothesis revealed a significant effect for sex (F(l,371) - 6.32, £ < .0123), trait anger (F(2,371) - 17.54, £ < .0001), anger-in (F(l,371) - 25.83, £< .0001), and the interactional effect of trait anger and anger-out (F\2,371) = 7.35, £ < .0007). These results are presented In Table 11. This indicated that sex, level of trait anger, anger-In, and the Interaction of trait anger and anger-out were associated with depressive symptoms. The Duncan's Multiple Range Tests for sex, level of trait anger, and anger suppression are reported in Table 12. These tests Indicated 74 Table 11. Analysis of variance for hypothesis four Relationship of Sex, Sex Role, Trait Anger, Anger Suppression, and Anger-Out to Depression Source of Degrees Type III F Level of variation of freedom sum of squares value significance Sex 1 207.29 6.32 0.0123 Sex role 3 242.54 2.47 0.0619 Trait anger 2 1150.14 17.54 0.0001 Anger suppression 1 846.91 25.83 0.0001 Anger-out 2 49.35 0.75 0.4718 Sex X sex role 3 73.53 0.75 0.5243 Sex X trait anger 2 158.36 2.42 0.0908 Sex X anger suppression 1 0.45 0.01 0.9073 Sex X anger-out 1 4.10 0.12 0.7239 Sex role x trait anger 6 144.09 0.73 0.6237 Sex role x anger supp. 3 118.95 1.21 0.3061 Sex role x anger-out 4 173.67 1.32 0.2603 Trait anger x anger supp. 2 51.55 0.79 0.4563 Trait anger x anger-out 2 482.02 7.35 0.0007 Anger supp. x anger-out 1 13.59 0.41 0.5201 75 Table 12. Significant differences in the means for sex, trait anger and anger suppression for depression Sex N Mean Code Women 214 8.44* A Men 193 6.65® B Trait anger N Mean Code High 62 12.55b A Average 274 7.34® B Low 71 4.24* C Anger suppression^ N Mean Code High 126 10.92b A Average 281 6.10* B Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. formal range of depression. M^ild range of depression. T^here were no subjects with anger suppression scores below the 15th percentile of Spielberger's (1986) normative sample. 76 that women differed significantly from men, obtaining higher scores of depression. However, It should be noted that although different from one another, both groups scored within the normal range of depres sion. Subjects scoring high In trait anger also obtained higher scores of depression, followed by subjects with average levels of trait anger. Subjects scoring low In trait anger obtained the lowest scores of depression. Subjects In these three trait anger groups were significantly different from one another. Those high in trait anger scored in the mild range of depression, while subjects with average and low levels of trait anger scored within the normal range of depression. Subjects scoring high in anger suppression obtained higher levels of depression and were significantly different from subjects with average levels of anger suppression. No subjects scored in the low range of anger sup pression. Subjects high in anger suppression scored within the mild range of depression and those subjects with average levels of anger suppression scored within the normal range of depression. The interactional effect of trait anger and anger-out is presented in Table 13. Subjects obtaining low or average levels of trait anger and low, average, or high scores on anger-out scored within the normal range of depression. Subjects scoring high in trait anger and high in anger-out obtained the next highest scores which placed them in the mild range of depression. Subjects scoring high in trait anger and average in anger-out obtained the highest scores which placed them in the mild-moderate range of depression. The final hypothesis stated that women and feminine sex role types who have difficulty expressing anger are more likely than men and other 77 Table 13. Differences In the means for the Interactional effect of trait anger and anger-out on depression Mean Trait anger Anger-out N depression Low Low 1 4.00 4.45® Low Average 66 Low High 4 0.75* Average Low 2 6.00* 6.91® 9.32* Average Average 222 Average High 50 High Average 19 15.89 High High 43 11.07® Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. N^ormal range of depression. M^iId-moderate range of depression. M^ild range of depression. . 78 sex role types who have difficulty expressing anger to experience negative effects on important aspects of mental health including a lack of self- confidence, dependency, passive-aggressiveness, conflict avoidance, guilt, and resentment. The model for the analysis of this hypothesis was a fac torial design defined by sex of subject, sex-role type, level of trait anger (high, average, low), level of anger-in (high, average, low), and level of anger-out (high, average, low). The dependent variables were self-confidence, dependency, passive-aggressiveness, conflict avoidance, guilt, and resentment. These mental health dependent variables were deter mined through various scales from the BDHI which measured guilt and resent ment and from the IBS which measured self-confidence, dependency, passive- aggressiveness, and conflict avoidance. Again, a significant interaction of any of the measures of anger with sex or sex role, with means in the appropriate order, would be consistent with the hypothesis. The multiple dependent variables were analyzed with a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to help preserve alpha at .05. This was done because these variables were significantly correlated. Signifi cant multivariate differences were further explored with univariate ANOVAs. Significant univariate differences were further explored, when necessary, with Duncan's Multiple Range Test, corrected for unequal n . The MANOVA test criteria for the hypothesis of no overall effect for the independent variables was investigated using Pillai's Trace. Significant multivariate effects were found for sex (£(6,366) = 2.67, £ < .0150), sex role (F(18,1104) = 3.50, £ < .0001), trait anger (F(12,734) - 3.56, £ < .0001), anger-in (F(6,366) » 5.37, £ < .0001), and anger-out (F^ (12,734) = 2.99, £ < .0004). The interactional effect 79 for these variables using Filial's Trace was nonsignificant. These findings Indicated that sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-In, and anger- out produced meaningful overall differences In subjects' responses to the mental health dependent variables. These effects were further explored using ANOVAs and Duncan's Multiple Range Test. The results of the ANOVA for self-confidence was significant for sex role (£(3,371) • 8,08, £ < .0001), trait anger (£(2,371) • 7.98, £ < .0004) and anger-In (£(1,371) • 22.93, £ < .0001), as presented In Table 14. This Indicated that sex role, trait anger, and anger-in were associated with self-confidence. Duncan's Multiple Range Test Indicated that subjects with an androgy nous and masculine sex role type obtained the highest scores on the self- confidence scale, which were significantly greater than those for subjects with a feminine and undifferentiated sex-role type (see Table 15). The latter groups were not significantly different from one another. Subjects who scored In the low and average range of trait anger obtained the highest scores on the self-confidence scale and were significantly different from subjects in the high range of trait anger (see Table 16). Subjects who scored in the average range of anger-in obtained significantly higher scores on the self-confidence scale than did subjects high in anger-in (see Table 17). The results of the ANOVA for dependency were significant for sex (£(1,371) - 8.23, £ < .0044), sex role (£(3,371) - 4.44, £ < .0044), trait anger (£(2,371) = 5.14, £ < .0063), and the interactional effect of sex and sex role (£(3,371) = 3.77, £ < .0110), as presented in Table 18. This indicated that sex, sex role, trait anger, and the interaction of sex and 80 Table 14. Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relationship of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-in, and anger-out and their interactions to self-confidence Source of Degrees of Type III F Level of variation freedom sum of squares value significance Sex 1 2.07 0.21 0.6479 Sex role 3 240.43 8.08 0.0001 Trait anger 2 158.30 7.98 0.0004 Anger-in 1 227.36 22.93 0.0001 Anger-out 2 1.94 0.10 0.9068 Sex X sex role 3 39.03 1.31 0.2702 Sex X trait anger 2 7.67 0.39 0.6796 Sex X anger-in 1 0.25 0.03 0.8743 Sex X anger-out 1 2.22 0.22 0.6364 Sex role x trait anger 6 50.68 0.85 0.5307 Sex role x anger-in 3 17.19 0.58 0.6298 Sex role x anger-out 4 42.77 1.08 0.3669 Trait anger x anger-in 2 20.49 1.03 0.3568 Trait anger x anger-out 3 30.47 1.54 0.2165 Anger-in x anger-out 1 0.89 0.09 0.7652 81 Table 15. Significant differences in the means for sex role for self-confidence Sex role N Mean Code Androgynous 116 11.97* A Masculine 90 11.18* A Feminine 91 9.29* B Undif f erentiated 110 9.07* B Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. A^verage range of self-confidence. 82 Table 16. Significant differences In the means for trait anger for self-confidence Trait anger N Mean Code Low 71 11.51* A Average 274 10.58® A High 62 8.42* B Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. A^verage range of self-confidence. 83 Table 17. Significant differences in the means for anger-in for self-confIdence Anger-in N Mean Code Average 281 11.17* A High 126 8.71* B Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. A^verage range of self-confidence. 84 Table 18. Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relationship of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-In and anger-out and their Interactions to dependency Source of Degrees of Type III F Level of variation freedom sum of squares value significance Sex 1 147.97 8.23 0.0044 Sex role 3 239.56 4.44 0.0044 Trait anger 2 184.97 5.14 0.0063 Anger-in 1 52.59 2.92 0.0881 Anger-out 2 40.46 1.12 0.3259 Sex X sex role 3 203.25 3.77 0.0110 Sex X trait anger 2 51.20 1.42 0.2422 Sex X anger-in 1 37.93 2.11 0.1473 Sex X anger-out 1 0.05 0.00 0.9596 Sex role x trait anger 6 83.94 0.78 0.5877 Sex role x anger-in 3 62.43 1.16 0.3261 Sex role x anger-out 4 27.04 0.38 0.8259 Trait anger x anger-in 2 1.10 0.03 0.9699 Trait anger x anger-out 3 106.06 2.95 0.0537 Anger-in x anger-out 1 12.85 0.71 0.3985 85 sex role were associated with dependency. Women (12.35) scored higher than men (10.44) on dependency, as Indicated in Table 19. Duncan's Multiple Range Test indicated that subjects in each sex role type classification were significantly different from one another as Illustrated In Table 20. Subjects with a feminine sex role type obtained the highest dependency scores, followed by undifferentiated, androgynous, and masculine sex role types. Subjects in each range of trait anger were significantly different from one another, as presented in Table 21. Subjects who scored in the high range of trait anger obtained the highest dependency scores, followed by subjects in the average range and those in the low range of trait anger. The interactional effect of sex and sex role is presented in Table 22. Women with a feminine sex role obtained the highest dependency scores which placed them in the high range of dependency. Women with a masculine sex role obtained the lowest dependency scores which placed them in the average range of dependency. Women with an androgynous sex role and men of all sex role types also scored within the average range of dependency. The results of the MOVÀ for passive-aggressiveness revealed a significant effect for sex (£(1,371) • 4.07, £ < .0442), sex role (F(3,371) - 4.60, £ < .0036), trait anger (F(2,371) = 9.76, £ < .0001), anger-in (£(1,371) • 10.62, £ < .0012), and anger-out (£(2,371) = 4.97, £ < .0074) are presented In Table 23. This indicated that sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-in, and anger-out were associated with passive-aggressiveness. Women (11.05) scored higher than men (10.68) on passive- aggressiveness (see Table 24). Duncan's Multiple Range Test indicated 86 Table 19. Significant differences in the means for sex for dependency Sex N Mean Women 214 12.35* Men 193 10.44* A^verage range of dependency. 87 Table 20. Significant differences in the means for sex role for dependency Sex role N Mean Code Feminine 91 13.91* A Undifferentiated 110 12.25^ B Androgynous 116 10.94^ C Masculine 90 8.61^ D Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. i^gh range of dependency. A^verage range of dependency. 88 table 21. Significant differences in the means for trait anger for dependency Trait anger N Mean Code High 62 13.24* A Average 274 11.46* B Low 71 9.79* C Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. *Average range of dependency. 89 Table 22. Differences In the means for Interactional sex and sex role on dependency effect of Sex Sex role N Mean dependency Women Feminine 74 14.42* Women Masculine 27 7.33^ Women Undifferentiated 54 13.48^ Women Androgynous 59 11.02^ Men Feminine 17 11.71^ Men Masculine 63 9.16^ Men Undifferentiated 56 11.05^ Men Androgynous 57 10.86^ Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. *Hlgh range of dependency. A^verage range of dependency. 90 Table 23. Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relationship of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-in, and anger-out and their interactions to passive-aggressiveness Source of Degrees of Type III F Level of variation freedom sum of squares value significance Sex 1 91.13 4.07 0.0442 Sex role 3 308.44 4.60 0.0036 Trait anger 2 436.75 9.76 0.0001 Anger-in 1 237.52 10.62 0.0012 Anger-out 2 222.29 4.97 0.0074 Sex X sex role 3 83.92 1.25 0.2911 Sex X trait anger 2 62.27 1.39 0.2498 Sex X anger-in 1 40.84 1.83 0.1774 Sex X anger-out 1 0.35 0.02 0.9003 Sex role x trait anger 6 65.39 0.49 0.8178 Sex role x anger-in 3 56.70 0.85 0.4699 Sex role x anger-out 4 136.48 1.53 0.1940 Trait anger x anger-in 2 66.23 1.48 0.2288 Trait anger x anger-out 3 120.58 2.70 0.0688 Anger-in x anger-out 1 3.67 0.16 0.6855 91 Table 24. Significant differences In the means for sex for passive- aggressiveness Sex N Mean Women 214 11 .05* Men 193 10 .68* A^verage range of passive-aggressiveness. 92 that subjects with an undifferentiated sex role type obtained signifi cantly higher passive-aggressiveness scores than did subjects with androgynous sex roles (see Table 25). Subjects in the different trait anger categories were significantly different from one another. Subjects high In trait anger obtained the highest passive-aggressiveness scores, followed by subjects with average trait anger and low trait anger (see Table 26). Subjects high in anger-in obtained the highest passive- aggressiveness scores and were significantly different from subjects who scored within the average range of anger-in (see Table 27). Subjects high in anger-out obtained the highest passive-aggressive scores and were sig nificantly different from subjects who scored in the average and low ranges of anger-out (see Table 28). The results of the ANOVÂ for conflict avoidance revealed a significant effect for sex role (£(3,371) - 8.88, £ < .0001), anger-in (F(l,371) - 12.53, £ < .0005), anger-out CF(2,371) • 9,04, £ < .0001), and the Interactional effect of sex role and trait anger (F(6,371) = 2.19, £ < .0438). These results are presented in Table 29. This indicated that subject's sex role, anger-in, anger-out, and interaction of sex role and trait anger were associated with conflict avoidance. The Duncan's Multiple Range Test indicated that subjects with a feminine and undifferentiated sex role type were similar and obtained the highest conflict avoidance scores. These two groups were significantly different from subjects with an androgynous and masculine sex role type who obtained the lowest conflict avoidance scores and were not signifi cantly different from one another (see Table 30). Subjects high in anger-in obtained conflict avoidance scores significantly greater than 93 Table 25. Significant differences in the means for sex role for passive-aggressiveness Sex role N Mean Code Undifferentiated 110 11.94* A Feminine 91 10.99* AB Masculine 90 10.89* AB Androgynous 116 9.77* B Note: Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. A^verage range of passive-aggressiveness. 94 Table 26. Significant differences in the means for trait anger for passive-aggressiveness Trait anger N Mean Code High 62 15.77* A Average 274 10.83* B Low 71 6.77* C Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. *Average range of passive-aggressiveness. 95 Table 27. Significant differences In the means for anger-In for passive-aggressiveness Anger-In N Mean Code High 126 13.37* A Average 281 9.75* B Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. A^verage range for passive-aggressiveness. 96 Table 28. Significant differences in the means for anger-out for passive-aggressiveness Anger-out N Mean Code High 97 14.38* A Average 307 9.81* B Low 3 6.00* B Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. A^verage range of passive-aggressiveness. 97 Table 29. Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relationship of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-In, and anger-out and their Interactions to conflict avoidance Source of Degrees of Type III F Level of variation freedom sum of squares value significance Sex 1 2.45 0.19 0.6664 Sex role 3 351.31 8.88 0.0001 Trait anger 2 2.15 0.08 0.9217 Anger-in 1 165.16 12.53 0.0005 Anger-out 2 238.42 9.04 0.0001 Sex X sex role 3 7.99 0.20 0.8949 Sex X trait anger 2 51.89 1.97 0.1411 Sex X anger-in 1 1.88 0.14 0.7059 Sex X anger-out 1 2.57 0.19 0.6592 Sex role x trait anger 6 172.82 2.19 0.0438 Sex role x anger-in 3 6.46 0.16 0.9210 Sex role x anger-out 4 39.43 0.75 0.5600 Trait anger x anger-in 2 0.77 0.03 0.9710 Trait anger x anger-out 3 18.81 0.71 0.4901 Anger-in x anger-out 1 1.19 0.09 0.7644 98 Table 30. Significant differences in the means for sex role for conflict avoidance Sex role N Mean Code Feminine 91 12.99* A Undif f erentlated 110 12.12* A Androgynous 116 8.56* B Masculine 90 7.89* B Note: Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. A^verage range of conflict avoidance. 99 those from subjects scoring In the average range of anger-In (see Table 31). Subjects scoring In the low and average ranges of anger-out obtained the highest conflict avoidance scores and were significantly greater than those from subjects scoring In the high range of anger-out (see Table 32). The Interactional effect of sex role and trait anger Is presented In Table 33. Subjects with a feminine sex role who scored high In trait anger obtained the highest conflict avoidance scores which placed them in the high range of conflict avoidance. Subjects with a masculine sex role who scored high in trait anger obtained the lowest conflict avoidance scores which placed them in the low range of conflict avoidance. Subjects in the remaining sex role classifications and trait anger levels scored within the average range of conflict avoidance. The results of the ANOVA for guilt revealed a significant effect for trait anger (F(2,371) - 11.17, £ < .0001) and anger-in (F(l,371) = 6.18, 2 < .0133) as presented in Table 34. This indicated that trait anger and anger-in were associated with guilt. The Duncan's Multiple Range Test indicated that subjects in the three levels of trait anger were significantly different from one another. Subjects high in trait anger obtained the highest scores on the guilt scale, followed by subjects who scored in the average and low ranges of trait anger (see Table 35). Subjects high in anger-in obtained the scores on the guilt scale that were signlficnatly greater than those from subjects who scored in the average range of anger-in (see Table 36). The results of the ANOVA for resentment revealed a significant 100 Table 31. Significant differences In the means for anger-In for conflict avoidance Anger-In N Mean Code High 126 11.82* A Average 281 9.71* B Note: Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. A^verage range of conflict avoidance. 101 Table 32. Significant differences in the means for anger-out for conflict avoidance Anger-out N Mean Code Low 3 12.33* A Average 307 11.22® A High 97 7.60* B Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at 2 < .05. A^verage range of conflict avoidance. 102 Table 33. Differences In the means for sex role and trait anger on the interactional effect of conflict avoidance Sex role Trait anger N Mean conflict avoidance Feminine Low 17 12.76* Feminine Average 62 12.77® Feminine High 12 14.42^ Masculine Low 12 9.75* Masculine Average 55 8.71* Masculine High 23 4.96^ Undifferentiated Low 22 13.23® Undifferentiated Average 74 11.91* Undifferentiated High 14 11.50* Androgynous Low 20 9.85* Androgynous Average 83 8.29* Androgynous High 13 8.31* Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. A^verage range of conflict avoidance. '^ Hlgh range of conflict avoidance. L^ow range of conflict avoidance. 103 Table 34. Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relationship of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-in, and anger-out and their interactions to guilt Source of Degrees of Type III F Level of variation freedom sum of squares value significance Sex 1 7.93 1.99 0.1591 Sex role 3 26.52 2.22 0.0854 Trait anger 2 88.95 11.17 0.0001 Anger-in 1 24.62 6.18 0.0133 Anger-out 2 0.09 0.01 0.9886 Sex X sex role 3 3.23 0.27 0.8463 Sex X trait anger 2 4.39 0.55 0.5769 Sex X anger-in 1 3.06 0.77 0.3812 Sex X anger-out 1 1.88 0.47 0.4922 Sex role x trait anger 6 38.56 1.61 0.1419 Sex role x anger-in 3 12.17 1.02 0.3843 Sex role x anger-out 4 8.18 0.51 0.7256 Trait anger x anger-in 2 0.05 0.01 0.9932 Trait anger x anger-out 3 1.65 0.21 0.8131 Anger-in x anger-out 1 1.25 0.31 0.5761 104 Table 35. Significant differences in the means for trait anger for guilt Trait anger N Mean Code High 62 5.84® A Average 274 4.48* B Low 71 3.68* C Note: Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. A^verage range of guilt. 105 Table 36. Significant differences in the means for anger-in for guilt Anger-in N Mean Code High 126 5.39* A Average 281 4.17* B Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. A^verage range of guilt. 106 effect for sex role (2(3,371) • 5.08, £ < .0019), trait anger (F(2,371) = 10.56, 2 < .0001), anger-in (F(l,371) • 5.76, < .0169, and anger-out (F(2,371) • 3.34, £ < .0363) as presented in Table 37. This Indicated that sex role, trait anger, anger-in, and anger-out were associated with resentment. The Duncan's Multiple Range Test indicated that subjects with an un differentiated sex role type obtained scores on the resentment scale that were significantly higher than those for subjects with feminine and androgynous sex roles. Subjects with an androgynous sex role obtained significantly lower resentment scores than did subjects with feminine and masculine sex roles. These results are presented in Table 38. Subjects in all levels of trait anger were significantly different from one another on the resentment scale. Subjects high in trait anger obtained the highest resentment scores, followed by subjects who scored in the average and low ranges of trait anger (see Table 39). Subjects high in anger-in obtained significantly higher resentment scores than did subjects who scored in the average range of anger-in (see Table 40). Subjects who scored in the high and average ranges of anger-out obtained the highest resentment scores and were significantly different from subjects low in anger-out. These results are presented in Table 41. Multiple Regression and Correlation In addition to the analyses of variance discussed in the previous section, multiple regression was also used to analyze the hypotheses. This was done as a means of examining the effects of the independent 107 Table 37. Analysis of variance for hypothesis five — relationship of sex» sex role, trait anger» anger-in» and anger-out and their interactions to resentment Source of Degrees of Type III F Level of variation freedom sum of squares value significance Sex 1 1.31 0.39 0.5324 Sex role 3 50.99 5.08 0.0019 Trait anger 2 70.69 10. j6 0.0001 Anger-in 1 19.28 5.76 0.0169 Anger-out 2 22.40 3.34 0.0363 Sex X sex role 3 20.89 2.08 0.1025 Sex X trait anger 2 5.34 0.80 0.4512 Sex X anger-in 1 1.35 0.40 0.5257 Sex X anger-out 1 0.09 0.03 0.8675 Sex role x trait anger 6 22.38 1.11 0.3534 Sex role x anger-in 3 15.79 1.57 0.1958 Sex role x anger-out 4 9.93 0.74 0.5644 Trait anger x anger-in 2 3.24 0.48 0.6169 Trait anger x anger-out 3 1.49 0.22 0.8009 Anger-in x anger-out 1 0.30 0.09 0.7645 108 Table 38. Significant differences in the means for sex role for resentment Sex role N Mean Code Undifferentiated 110 3.98* A Masculine 90 3.52* AB Feminine 91 3.36* B Androgynous 116 2.84* C Note: Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. A^verage range of resentment. 109 Table 39. Significant differences In the means for trait anger for resentment Trait anger N Mean Code High 62 5.08* A Average 274 3.41* B Low 71 2.00^ C Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at £ < .05. A^verage range of resentment. \ow range of resentment. 110 Table 40, Significant differences In the means for anger-In for resentment Anger-In N Mean Code High 126 4.29® A Average 281 3.02* B Note: Means with the same code are not significantly different at 2 < .05. A^verage range of resentment. Ill Table 41. Significant differences in the means for anger-out for resentment Anger-out N Mean Code High 97 4.43* A Average 307 3.12* A Low 3 1.00^ B Note: Means with the same code are not significantly different at 2 < .05. A^verage range of resentment. L^ow range of resentment. 112 variables on the dependent variables. In this manner, femininity and masculinity were analyzed as continuous variables, rather than analyzed as discrete sex-role classification variables. However, it became readily apparent that the variables were highly intercorrelated which precluded the use of Type III sums of squares. In light of these data, it was decided that the ÂNOVÂ was most appropriate. Alternatively, a correlational model by sex was used to examine the degree of relation ship among the variables within sex. The correlational data by sex are presented In Appendix C. An Important purpose of this study was to explore possible rela tionships and gender and sex role differences that might exist between anger expression, hostility, aggressiveness, and assertlveness and the mental health indices Included in the final hypothesis: lack of self-confidence, passive-aggressiveness, conflict avoidance, dependency, resentment, and guilt. It was expected that the negative aspects of mental health being evaluated would be positively correlated with anger-in, hostility, and aggressiveness, and negatively correlated with assertlveness. These data are presented in Table 42 for women and men. For women (n • 242), a masculine sex role type was significantly correlated with self-confidence (£ • .41, £< .0001), dependency (r • -.45, 2 < .0001), and conflict avoidance (£ • -.51, £ < .0001). Anger-in was significantly correlated with self-confidence (jr = -.46, £ < .0001), dependency (jr " .35, £ < .0001), passive-aggressiveness (£ • .48, £ < .0001), conflict avoidance (£ • .38, £ < .0001), guilt (£ = .34, £ < .0001), and resentment (jr » .40, £ < .0001). Anger-out Table 42. Pearson correlation coefficients for women and men RSA RSB STAST AXIN (femininity) (masculinity) (trait anger) (anger-in) Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Self- confidence 0.04 0.53 237 0.22 0.00 213 0.41 0.00 241 0.35 0.00 213 -0.36 0.00 242 -0.21 0.00 213 -0.46 0.00 242 -0.32 0.00 213 Dependency 0.18 0.01 237 0.13 0.06 213 -0.45 0.00 241 -0.15 0.03 213 0.32 0.00 242 0.26 0.00 213 0.35 0.00 242 0.11 0.11 213 Passive- aggressiveness -0.09 0.18 237 -0.24 0.00 213 -0.17 0.01 241 -0.07 0.33 213 0.60 0.00 242 0.51 0.00 213 0.48 0.00 242 0.34 0.00 213 Conflict avoidance 0.06 0.32 237 -0.02 0.78 213 -0.51 0.00 241 -0.47 0.00 213 -0.10 0.12 242 -0.21 0.00 213 0.38 0.00 242 0.17 0.01 213 Guilt 0.09 0.16 237 0.06 0.36 213 -0.18 0.01 241 -0.16 0.02 213 0.33 0.00 242 0.33 0.00 213 0.34 0.00 242 0.36 0.00 213 Resentment -0.09 0.15 437 -0.28 0.00 213 -0.12 0.05 241 -0.13 0.05 213 0.53 0.00 242 0.52 0.00 213 0.40 0.00 242 0.39 0.00 213 Note; The three figures reported from top to bottom are the Pearson correlation coefficient, £ value, and n. 114 AXOUT (anger-out) Aggressiveness Assertlveness Hostility Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men —0.07 0.29 242 -0.01 0.87 213 -0.17 0.01 242 -0.09 0.17 213 0.56 0.00 242 0.58 0.00 213 -0.36 0.00 242 -0.24 0.00 213 0.13 0.04 242 0.18 0.01 213 0.10 0.12 242 0.10 0.14 213 -0.37 0.00 242 -0.14 0.05 213 0.42 0.00 242 0.38 0.00 213 0.36 0.00 242 0.47 0.00 213 0.50 0.00 242 0.53 0.00 213 -0.17 0.01 242 —0.02 0.73 213 0.72 0.00 242 0.72 0.00 213 —0.36 0.00 242 -0.47 0.00 213 -0.13 0.04 242 -0.33 0.00 213 -0.59 0.00 242 -0.64 0.00 213 -0.05 0.44 242 -0.25 0.00 213 0.22 0.00 242 0.09 0.21 213 0.12 0.07 242 0.05 0.51 213 -0.19 0.00 242 —0.26 0.00 213 0.59 0.00 242 0.44 0.00 213 0.31 0.00 242 0.41 0.00 213 0.35 0.00 242 0.45 0.00 213 -0.14 0.03 242 -0.11 0.11 213 0.69 0.00 242 0.75 0.00 213 115 was significantly correlated with passive-aggressiveness = .36, £ < .0001) and conflict avoidance (£ • -.36, 2 < .0001). Assertiveness was significantly correlated with anger-in (jr • -.27, £ < .0001), self-confidence (£ • .56, £ < .0001), dependency (£ • -.37, £ < .0001), and conflict avoidance (_r = -.59, £ < .0001). Hostility was significantly correlated with passive-aggressiveness (£ » .72, £ < .0001), self-confidence (r_ • -.36, £ < .0001), dependency (£ • .42, £ < .0001), resentment (£ » .69, £ < .0001), and guilt (£ • .59, £ < .0001). For men (n • 213), a feminine sex role type was significantly correlated with resentment (jr - -.28, £ < .0001). A masculine sex role type was significantly correlated with self-confidence (jc • .35, £ < .0001) and conflict avoidance (£ • -.47, £ < .0001). Anger-in was significantly correlated with self-confidence (£ • -.32, £ < .0001), passive-aggressiveness (£ = .34, £ < .0001), guilt (r • .36, £ < .0001), and resentment (r^ " .39, £ < .0001). Anger-out was significantly cor related with passive-aggressiveness (jr • .47, £ < .0001), conflict avoidance (£ = -.47, £ < .0001), and resentment (£ • .41, £ < .0001). Aggressiveness was significantly correlated (£ < .0001) with passive- aggressiveness <£ « .53, £ < .0001), conflict avoidance (£ • -.33, £ < .0001), and resentment (£ • .45, £ < .0001). Assertiveness was significantly correlated <£ < .0001) with self-confidence (£ = .58, £ < .0001), conflict avoidance (£ • -.64, £ < .0001), and guilt (r^ • -.26, £ < .0001). Hostility was significantly correlated with passive-aggressiveness (£ •» .72, £< .0001), dependency (£ » .38, £< .0001), resentment (£ » .75, £ < .0001), and guilt <£ = .44, 116 £ < .0001). The correlational data for the combined sample on all measures are presented In Appendix D. As previously discussed, the examination of the relationships among these variables Is important in view of the conceptual and methodological ambiguity of previous investigations. Cluster Analyses Preliminary analyses An important issue that must be addressed prior to clustering data is the relationship among the variables. If the variables are not independent, eventual clustering may be overly Influenced by the correlated variables being more heavily weighted. To determine the correlation among the variables to be Included in this study's cluster analysis, the data were factor analyzed using a principal axis method with a varlmax rotation. Reducing the data in this manner so the underlying factors are equally weighted relative to the proximity measure is discussed by Borgen and Barnett (1987). Three factors had eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and the rotated 3-factor pattern is presented in Table 43. Additionally, the three factor solution was most Interpretable. The high loadings on the first factor of Assault (.60), Aggressive ness (.80), Hostile Stance (.88), Disregard for Rights (.77), Verbal Aggressiveness (.64), and Physical Aggressiveness (.67) suggested a negative expression of anger. Including elements of aggression and acting-out behavior. The high loadings on the second factor of 117 Table 43. Rotated factor pattern Scale Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Anger-In (AXIN) 0.05917 -0.00287 0.59669 Anger-out (AXOUT) 0.32207 0.71442 0.17340 Anger control (AXCON) -0.15835 -0.64631 -0.22879 Trait anger (STAST) 0.22589 0.58631 0.49588 Assault (ASSAULT) 0.60412 0.39538 0.06523 Indirect hostility (INDIRHOS) 0.11674 0.51744 0.29691 Irritability (IRRITBLE) 0.15759 0.45319 0.63406 Negativism (NEGATIVE) 0.34907 0.16726 0.38776 Resentment (RESENT) 0.15872 0.23395 0.72057 Suspicion (SUSPICIN) 0.18936 0.18884 0.70864 Verbal hostility (VERBLHOS) 0.45054 0.59843 -0.01244 Aggressiveness (AGGRESS) 0.80331 0.24676 0.29876 Hostile stance (HOSTILST) 0.87686 0.20409 0.21408 Expression of anger (ANGEREX) 0.37867 0.72952 0.25768 Disregard for rights (DISREGD) 0.76708 0.08066 0.24149 Verbal aggressiveness (VERBALAG) 0.63840 0.44700 0.15370 Physical aggressiveness (PHYSAGG) 0.66973 0.30776 0.12319 Passive aggressiveness (PASSIVAG) 0.26358 0.27492 0.72413 118 Anger-Out (.71), Anger Control (-.65), Trait Anger (.59), Indirect Hostility (.52), Verbal Hostility (.60), and Expression of Anger (.73) suggested higher levels of acknowledged anger with less control and physical expression and more verbal and indirect hostility. High loadings on the third factor of Anger-In (.60), Trait Anger (.50), Irritability (.63), Resentment (.72), Suspicion (.71), and Passive Aggressiveness (.72) suggested anger suppression. In view of the descriptive nature of this study, a decision was made to perform cluster analyses utilizing two methods. Initially, the data were analyzed using the factor scores for all scales obtained in the factor analysis. This method allows the investigator to main tain the independence of the factor scores. A second method of clustering was utilized in which scales with a factor loading score of .50 or greater were used to form dimensions of equal unit weighting. Use of unit factor scores generally is a robust technique, but it can result in correlated factors, which was the case in this study. Cluster analysis using factor scores The cluster program of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS, 1985) was used for the cluster analysis. This program Is based on Ward's hierarchical method of cluster analysis which merges groups based on minimum within-in group variance. This method provides an index of within-group error which can be plotted to facilitate the selection of the appropriate grouping level (Borgen & Barnett, 1987). The semi-partial r squared scores for the present sample are plotted in Figure 1. Based on these results, it was concluded that a five cluster solution was 0.225» I 1 0.2001 0.175 K 0.125 • I Z o.iooi i 0.075* 0.050* 0.025 0.000 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l6 17 18 19 20 Number of Clusters Figure 1. Plot of semi-partial r squared scores 120 appropriate. These five clusters are Illustrated In Figure 2. Subjects In Cluster 1 (n • 114) scored relatively low on the anger expression factors and appear to suppress anger as evidenced by their high scores on Factor 3. Subjects in Cluster 2 (n - 49) appear to be acknowledging high levels of anger which is not controlled and likely to be expressed with aggression, acting-out behaviors, and hostility as evidenced by their high scores on Factor 1 and Factor 2. Subjects in Cluster 3 (n " 97) do not appear to be acknowledging anger or hostility, or suppressing anger, as evidenced by their low scores on Factor 2 and Factor 3. However, subjects in Cluster 3 do appear to express anger with aggression and acting-out behaviors, as evidenced by their high scores on Factor 1. Subjects in Cluster 4 (n = 117) do not appear to be acknowledging significant anger expression, suppression, or hostility, as evidenced by their low scores on all factors. Subjects in Cluster 5 (n • 78) acknowledge verbal and indirect hostility and high levels of anger which is not controlled, as evidenced by their high scores on Factor 2. However, subjects in Cluster 5 do not appear to express anger aggressively, as evidenced by their low scores on Factor 1. Subjects In this cluster also appear to suppress anger, as evidenced by their high scores on Factor 3. Validation of clusters As a means of verifying the validity of this cluster solution, one-way Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) across the five clusters were performed on the variables not Included in the cluster analysis. These variables provided data appropriate for ANOVAs and Included: 121 2 r I c/a 0 I C/3 -1 -2 _L Factor 1* Factor 2^ • Cluster 5 Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Factor 3^ Factor 1 = negative expression of anger with aggression and acting-out behavior. '^ Factor 2 • high levels of acknowledged, uncontrolled anger with less physical expression and more verbal and indirect hostility. F^actor 3 = anger suppression. Figure 2. Group means for the three factors using a five cluster solution 122 femininity, masculinity, state anger, depression, denial, infrequent responses, impression management, assertiveness, self-confidence, initiating assertiveness, defending assertiveness, frankness, praise, requesting help, refusing demands, conflict avoidance, dependency, shy ness, negativism, guilt, and total hostility. Significant differences among the clusters were found on all variables as presented in Table 44. All of these variables were significant at the 0.0001 level or greater; femininity (F(4,450) • 12.31), masculinity (£(4,450) • 22.60), state anger (£(4,451) • 16.40), depression (£(4,451) = 26.05), denial (F(4,451) « 8.99), infrequency (F(4,451) • 26.92), impres sion management (F(4,451) • 36.34), assertiveness (£(4,451) = 31.07, self- confidence (£(4,451) - 26.12, initiating assertiveness (£(4,451) = 18.36), defending assertiveness (£(4,451) » 24.53), frankness (£(4,451) = 22.06), giving and receiving praise (£(4,451) • 14.11), requesting help (£(4,451) - 12.03), refusing demands (£(4,451) • 17.22), conflict avoidance (£(4,451) - 51.80), dependency (£(4,451) = 22.43), shyness (£(4,451) • 12.29), negatlveness (£(4,451) » 23.56), guilt (£(4,451) = 22.04), and total hostility (£(4,451) • 125.18). Significant univariate effects were further explored with Duncan's Multiple Range Test, corrected for unequal ii as Illustrated in Ap pendix E. A summary of these results is presented in Table 45. The analysis of femininity indicated that subjects in Clusters 4 and 5 scored higher than subjects in Clusters 1, 3, and 2. Sub jects in Clusters 1 and 3 obtained the next highest scores on femininity which were greater than those in Cluster 2. For masculinity, subjects in Clusters 2 and 3 obtained the highest scores which were 123 Table 44. Analysis of variance with the five clusters Source of Type III F P variation sum of squares value value Femininity 44.77 12.31 0.0001 Masculinity 75.94 22.60 0.0001 State anger 57.76 16.40 0.0001 Depression 85.38 26.05 0.0001 Denial 33.59 8.99 0.0001 Infrequency 87.69 26.92 0.0001 Impression 110.91 36.34 0.0001 Assertlveness 98.29 31.07 0.0001 Self-confidence 85.58 26.12 0.0001 Initiating assertlveness 63.72 18.36 0.0001 Defending assertlveness 81.29 24.53 0.0001 Frankness 74.47 22.06 0.0001 Praise 50.60 14.11 0.0001 Requesting help 43.85 12.03 0.0001 Refusing demands 60.28 17.22 0.0001 Conflict avoidance 143.23 51.80 0.0001 Dependency 75.50 22.43 0.0001 Shyness 44.72 12.29 0.0001 Negatlveness 78.65 23.56 0.0001 Guilt 74.39 22.04 0.0001 Total hostility 239.38 125.18 0.0001 Note; Degrees of freedom • 4, 450-451. Table 45. Description of five clusters High scores (standard score Cluster of .4 and higher) Conflict avoidance, female Male, masculinity, state anger, infrequency, as- sertlveness, defending as- sertlveness, frankness, negatlveness, total hos tility Male, masculinity, assertlve- ness. Initiating assertive- ness, defending assertlve- ness Intermediate scores (standard score of .4 and -.4) Low scores (standard score of -.4 and lower) Age, femininity, state anger, depression, denial infrequency, impression management, praise, request ing help, dependency, shy ness, negatlveness, guilt, total hostility Age, depression, self- confidence, initiating as- sertiveness, praise, re questing help, refusing demands, dependency, shy ness, guilt Masculinity, assertiveness, self-confidence, initiating assertiveness, defending as sertiveness, frankness, re fusing demands Femininity, denial, impres sion management, conflict avoidance Age, femininity, state anger, depression, denial, infrequency, impression management, self-confidence, frankness, praise, request ing help, refusing demands, shyness, negatlveness, total hostility Conflict avoidance, depen dency, guilt Table 45. Continued High scores Intermediate scores Low scores (standard score) (standard score (standard score Cluster of .4 and higher) of .4 and -.4) of -.4 and lower) 4 Impression management. Age, femininity, mas State anger, depression, in self-confidence, praise. culinity, denial, assertive- frequency, negativeness. female ness, initiating assertive- total hostility ness, defending assertive- ness, frankness, requesting help, refusing demands. conflict avoidance, depen dency, shyness, guilt 5 State anger, depression. Age, femininity, masculinity. Sex, impression management. dependency, guilt, total denial, infrequency, as- self-confidence, initiating hostility, female sertiveness, frankness. assertiveness, defending requesting help, conflict assertiveness, praise, re avoidance, shyness, nega- fusing demands tlveness 126 greater than scores from subjects In Clusters 4, 5, and 1. Subjects In Clusters 4 and 5 obtained the next highest scores on masculinity, which were greater than those from subjects In Cluster 1. For state anger, subjects In Clusters 5 and 2 obtained the highest scores which were greater than scores from subjects In Clusters 1, 3, and 4. Subjects In Cluster 1 obtained the next highest scores on state anger which were greater than those from subjects in Cluster 4. For depression, subjects In Cluster 5 obtained the highest scores which were greater than scores from subjects In Clusters 2, 1, 3, and 4. Subjects In Clusters 2 and 1 obtained the next highest depression scores, which were greater than those from subjects In Clusters 3 and 4. For denial, subjects in Cluster 4 obtained the highest scores which were greater than scores from subjects In Clusters 1, 3, 5, and 2. Subjects in Clusters 1 and 3 obtained the next highest denial scores, which were greater than those from subjects in Cluster 2. For the infrequency scale, subjects in Cluster 2 obtained the highest scores which were greater than scores from subjects in Clusters 3, 5, 1, and 4. Subjects In Clusters 3 and 5 obtained the next highest Infrequency scores, which were greater than those from subjects in Clusters 1 and 4. For the impression management scale, subjects in Cluster 4 obtained the highest scores, which were greater than scores from subjects in Clusters 3, 1, 5, and 2. Subjects in Clusters 3 and 1 obtained the next highest scores, which were greater than those from subjects in Clusters 5 and 2. 127 For assertlveness, subjects in Clusters 2 and 3 obtained the highest scores which were greater than scores from subjects in Clusters 4, 5, and 1. Subjects in Cluster 4 obtained the next highest scores, which were greater than those from subjects in Clusters 5 and 1. For self-confidence, subjects in Clusters 4 and 3 obtained the highest scores which were greater than scores from subjects in Clusters 2, 1, and 5. Subjects in Cluster 2 obtained the next highest scores which were greater than those from subjects in Clusters 1 and 5. For initiating assertiveness, defending assertiveness, requesting help, and refusing demands, subjects in Clusters 2, 3, and 4 obtained the highest scores which were greater than scores from subjects in Clusters 5 and 1. For giving and receiving praise, subjects in Clusters 4 and 3 obtained the highest scores and were greater than scores from subjects in Clusters 2, 1, and 5. For frankness, subjects in Clusters 2, 3, and 4 obtained the highest scores which were greater than scores from subjects in Clusters 5 and 1. Subjects in Cluster 5 obtained the next highest scores on the frankness scale, which were greater than those from subjects in Cluster 1. For conflict avoidance, subjects in Cluster 1 obtained the highest scores which were greater than scores from subjects in Clusters 5, 4, 3, and 2. Subjects in Clusters 5 and 4 obtained the next highest scores which were greater than those from subjects in Clusters 3 and 2. Subjects in Cluster 3 obtained the next highest scores which were greater than those from subjects in Cluster 2. 128 For dependency, subjects In Clusters 5 and 1 obtained the highest scores which were greater than scores from subjects in Clusters 2, 4, and 3. Subjects in Cluster 2 obtained the next highest dependency scores which were greater than those from subjects in Clusters 4 and 3. For shyness, subjects in Clusters 1, 5, and 2 obtained the highest scores which were greater than scores from subjects in Clusters 3 and 4. For negativeness, subjects in Cluster 2 obtained the highest scores which were greater than scores from subjects in Clusters 5, 1, 3, and 4. Subjects in Cluster 5 obtained the next highest scores which were greater than those from subjects in Clusters 3 and 4. Subjects in Clusters 1 and 3 obtained the next highest scores which were greater than those from subjects in Cluster 4. For guilt, subjects in Clusters 5 and 1 obtained the highest scores which were greater than scores from subjects in Clusters 2, 4, and 3. Subjects in Cluster 2 obtained the next highest scores which were greater than those from subjects in Clusters 4 and 3. For total hostility, subjects in Cluster 2 obtained the highest scores which were greater than scores from subjects in Clusters 5, 1, 3, and 4. Subjects in Cluster 5 obtained the next highest scores which were greater than those from subjects in Clusters 1, 3, and 4. Subjects in Cluster 1 and 3 obtained the next highest scores which were greater than those from subjects in Cluster 4. Results of the chi-square analysis indicated that the effects of subject's marital status (x^ (20, N = 455) = 19.20, £ < .509), parental 2 9 home (x (24, N - 451) - 15.61, £ < .902), place of childhood (x (12, N = 454) = 14.31, p < .281), age (x^ (28, N » 455) = 30.00, £ < .363), 129 2 father's education (x (12, N • 455) « 15.27, £ < .227), and mother's 2 education (x (12, N • 455) • 9.78, £ < .635) were nonsignificant. As indicated in Table 46, a significant effect was found for sex of subject (x^ (4, N • 455) - 90.87, £ < .000). Members of Clusters 1, 4, and 5 were mostly women, whereas the majority of members in Clusters 2 and 3 were men. Cluster analysis using unit factor scores Ward's hierarchical method of cluster analysis (Statistical Analysis System, 1985) was used also in the analysis of unit factor scores (to be referred to as dimensions). As previously indicated, these dimensions were formed by combining the standardized score of scales with a factor loading score of .50 or greater on a particular factor. Factor loadings are presented in Table 47. The semi-partial r squared scores for the present sample are plotted in Figure 3. Based on these results, it was concluded that a three cluster solution was appropriate. The group means for the three clusters are presented in Figure 4. As is evident in this figure, the three clusters simply represented a "level" effect because of the high Intercorrelatlons of the three dimensions (^ ^g " -64, 2% 3 " .54, £23" *75)' 1" view of these results, it was decided that further analysis of these dimensions would not be pursued. 130 Table 46. Cluster by sex frequency table Sex Women Men Cluster Total N n Percent of total Percent of cluster n Percent of total Percent of cluster 1 114 79 17.36 69.30 35 7.69 30.70 2 49 12 2.64 24.49 37 8.13 75.51 3 97 19 4.18 19.59 78 17.14 80.41 4 117 74 16.26 63.25 43 9.45 36.75 5 78 58 12.75 74.36 20 4.40 25.64 Note: Degrees of freedom were 4. Overall chi-square is 90.87, p < .000. 131 Table 47. Factor loading scores for clustering dimensions Variable Factor loading score Dimension 1 Factor 1 Assault .60 Aggressiveness .80 Hostile stance .88 Disregard for rights .77 Verbal aggressiveness .64 Physical aggressiveness .67 Dimension 2 Factor 2 Anger-out .71 Anger control -.65 Trait anger .59 Indirect hostility .52 Verbal hostility .60 Expression of anger .73 Dimension 3 Factor 3 Anger-in .60 Trait anger .50 Irritability .63 Resentment .72 Suspicion .71 Passive-aggressiveness .72 55 I 50 I 45 * 40 Î 35 • 30 • 25 I 20 • 15 I 10 * 05 I 00 • Î 3. 1 8 9 10 U 12 13 14 15 16 17 IB 19 20 Number ot Clusters Plot of semi-partial r squared scores 133 2 -1 -2 -# Cluster 2 -» Cluster 3 -* Cluster 1 Dimension 1 Dimension 2 Dimension 3 D^imension 1 • expression of anger with aggression and acting-out behavior. D^imension 2 = expression of anger with less acting-out behavior. D^imension 3 - anger suppression. Figure 4. Group means for the three dimensions using a three cluster solution 134 DISCUSSION The primary purpose of this study was to investigate a series of hypotheses related to women's experience and expression of anger. Subjects completed a test booklet containing several questionnaires related to anger, hostility, aggressiveness, assertiveness, depression, and other mental health indices. It should be noted that self-report measures of behavior and characteristics may be limited by the subjects' level of awareness of themselves, willingness to indicate their behavior and characteristics, and the perceived social desirability of a certain response. However, insuring subject confidentiality and anonymity hopefully reduced unwillingness to respond honestly and the tendency to respond in a socially desirable fashion. Gender differences were examined by including both women and men in the population of study. The prevailing belief is that women experience anger differently than men. The univariate results of this study did not support the hypothesis that gender alone determines one's ability to express anger effectively. However, this study did support the work of others who have found that women experience higher levels of depression (Guttentag, Salasin, & Belle, 1980; Guttentag & Salasin, 1976; President's Commission on Mental Health, 1978; Weissman & Klerman, 1977). Although women did obtain higher scores on depression than men, both groups scored within the normal range. Women also obtained higher scores than men on dependency and passive-aggressiveness, although again, both groups scored within the normal range. Sex role differences were examined by including both women and 135 men in the population of study and determining their sex role classifica tion. The results supported the work of others who have found that sex role type does have a significant impact on various aspects of an individual's mental health functioning (Bem, 1975, 1981; Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, & Vogel, 1970; Flaherty & Dusek, 1980; Heilbrun, 1981; Lubinski, Tellegen, & Butcher, 1981; Major, Carnevale, & Deaux, 1981; Shaw, 1982; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1975; Waterman & Whitbourne, 1982). In the present study, sex role classification was associated with: 1) individual differences in anger proneness, 2) the tendency to express anger toward other people or objects in the environment, 3) anger suppression, and 4) anger control. Subjects with a masculine sex role type reported higher levels of trait anger; proneness to anger as a personality trait. They also scored higher on the anger-out measure which suggests a greater tendency to express anger toward other people or objects in the en vironment. Subjects with a feminine and undifferentiated sex role type obtained the lowest scores on the anger-out measure and the highest scores in anger suppression. Androgynous subjects denoted the highest tendency to control the experience of anger, followed by subjects with feminine, undifferentiated, and masculine sex roles. Another focus of this study was to investigate the relationships among various aspects of anger and important indices of mental health. The prevailing belief is that women have more difficulty than men expressing anger and that they frequently express it through symptoms 136 of depression (Bernardez-Bonesattl, 1978; Collier, 1982; Kaplan, 1986; Lemkau & Landau, 1986; Lerner, 1985; Miller, 1983; Scarf, 1980; Wetzel, 1984). This study further hypothesized that women who have difficulty expressing anger are subject to negative effects on other Important as pects of mental hèalth Including: a lack of self-confidence, passive- aggressiveness, conflict avoidance, dependency, resentment, and guilt. As previously indicated, the results of this study did not support the prevailing belief that women frequently express anger through symptoms of depression. However, the results did indicate a rela tionship among various aspects of anger and depression as well as the mental health indices discussed above. Subjects who scored high in trait anger obtained the highest scores on the depression scale as compared to subjects with average and low levels of trait anger. The latter groups scored within normal levels of depression; subjects high in trait anger scored within the mild range of depression. Subjects high in anger suppression also obtained the highest scores on the depression scale, as compared to subjects who scored in the average and low range of anger suppression. Subjects high in anger suppression scored within the mild range of depression. Likewise, subjects who scored high in trait anger and high in anger-out scored within the mild range of depression. Subjects who scored high in trait anger and average in anger-out scored within the mild to moderate range of depression. Based on these results, it appears that various aspects of anger, particularly trait anger and anger suppression, have an Impact on the individual's feelings of depression. Specifically, high levels 137 of these anger variables are associated with mild levels of depres sion. This finding appears to support the belief that anger, particularly anger which Is suppressed. Is not conducive to good mental health. However, an unexpected finding was the Interactional effect of trait anger and anger-out which also contributed to mild to moderate levels of depression. This result suggests that an Individual with a personality trait of anger proneness, coupled with the tendency to express anger toward other people or objects in the environment, will experience mild to moderate levels of depression. Thus, this finding appears to contra dict the belief that anger expressed outwardly is healthier than sup pressed anger, thereby resulting in less depression. The Independent variables of sex, sex role, trait anger, anger-in, and anger-out produced significant effects in the mental health variables that were Investigated, i.e., self-confidence, dependency, passive- aggressiveness, conflict avoidance, guilt, and resentment. Also, in the majority of instances, the various levels of each independent variable were significantly different from one another with respect to the mental health variables. In general, subjects in all levels of each Independent variable scored within the average range of self- confidence, dependency, passive-aggressiveness, conflict avoidance, guilt, and resentment. However, there were exceptions to this general finding which are discussed below. As previously indicated, women obtained higher dependency scores than men, although both groups scored within the average range. However, individuals with a feminine sex role scored within the high range of dependency as compared to other sex role types who scored 138 within the average range. High levels of dependency suggest strong reliance on others for help in decision making, feelings of powerless- ness and helplessness, fear of losing the support of others, and attention seeking. It appears from this finding that gender and sex role, especially sex role, are critical factors related to dependency. This finding is consistent with the work of Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, and Vogel (1970) and Bern (1974) related to the issue of society's view of female characteristics and the resulting consequences of these be haviors. Relying on others for help in decision making, feelings of powerlessness and helplessness, and fear of losing the support of others are critical issues related to many theories of counseling women. In addition to reporting higher levels of depression, subjects scoring high on trait anger and anger-out reported higher levels of resentment. It appears that Individuals with low levels of trait anger and individuals who do not express their anger outwardly have lower levels of resentment. Again, this finding does not support the belief that anger expressed outwardly is healthier. Subjects with a feminine sex role and high levels of trait anger reported high levels of conflict avoidance, unlike subjects with a masculine sex role and high levels of trait anger who reported low levels of conflict avoidance. Cluster analyses also were performed on the data to provide a descriptive, multivariate view of the experience and expression of anger. Five distinct clusters emerged, and women constituted the majority of subjects in Clusters 1, 4, and 5, while men constituted the majority of subjects in the remaining two clusters. It is also important to 139 note that subjects in Clusters 4 and 5 obtained the highest femininity scores, while subjects in Clusters 2 and 3 obtained the highest masculinity scores. Thus, gender and sex role were correlated and both appeared to affect subjects' experience and expression of anger viewed multi- variately. Subjects in Clusters 1 and 5 were primarily female and obtained the highest scores on anger suppression and the lowest scores on hostile/ aggressive acting out. Subjects in Cluster 1 acknowledged only very low levels of anger, whereas subjects in Cluster 5 acknowledged relatively high levels of anger, expressed verbally or indirectly, but both clusters were characterized by avoidance of conflict, low levels of assertiveness, low self-confidence, and low masculinity scores. Subjects in Cluster 5 also reported higher levels of depression, total hostility, and in frequent responses, suggesting that the associated pattern of anger ex pression is the more problematic. Subjects in Cluster 4 also were primarily female, and they reported low levels of hostility/aggressive acting out, anger expression, and anger suppression. These subjects also scored high on measures of self-confidence, the ability to give and receive praise, and impression management. Thus, Cluster 4 may have included some of the more mentally healthy subjects. It is important to note that these subjects' impression management scores were not indicative of a social desirability response set. In contrast, subjects in Clusters 2 and 3, who were primarily male, reported the highest levels of hostile/aggressive acting out behavior. Subjects in Cluster 2 acknowledged higher levels of uncontrolled anger and anger suppression relative to subjects in Cluster 3. Overall, the 140 pattern of anger expression associated with Cluster 2 appeared to be the most problematic of the two. Consistent with this observation, subjects In Cluster 2 scored high on negatlveness and total hostility. Relative to Cluster 3, Cluster 2 also was associated with higher depres sion and dependency and lower self-confidence. Subjects In both clusters scored high on the various measures of assertlveness. Based on these results. It appears that there are different patterns of experiencing and expressing anger, that the patterns are strongly related to gender and sex role, and that the patterns were differentially related to mental health problems or risks. For women, suppression of anger appears to be most problematic. Suppression alone Is associated with relatively higher conflict avoidance and relatively lower assertlve ness and self-confidence (Cluster 1). Suppression and relatively higher levels of uncontrolled anger expressed indirectly appears to result in relatively higher levels of mental health problems without significantly decreasing problems associated with suppression alone (Cluster 5). For men, hostile/aggressive acting out was most prominent. When reflected in lower scores on expression of uncontrolled anger, and not also associated with suppression, significant potential mental health problems were not manifested (Cluster 3). More frequent hostile/ aggressive acting out and anger suppression were associated with greater potential mental health problems (Cluster 2). Perhaps the most striking pattern for males or females was the apparent relation of mental health with the relatively modulated expres sion of anger without substantial suppression. This pattern supports the prevailing belief that women who have difficulty expressing anger, 141 particularly those who rely on anger suppression, may be subject to a variety of mental health difficulties. Furthermore, this pattern suggests that anger suppression can also be implicated in the problematic expression of anger by men. Limitations of the Study There are several limitations evident in this study which the reader should be aware of when considering the implications of the results. Clearly, this is a descriptive study designed to investigate contemporary speculations regarding women's experience and expression of anger, as well as the relationships that may exist among various aspects of anger and important Indices of mental health. The significance of a relationship, however, does not imply causation. Additionally, the reliance on self-report measures might introduce an element of subjectlveness. The fact that subject confidentiality and anonymity were Insured, as well as data eliminated from subjects whose scores indicated an invalid profile, suggest that Issues of response bias may have been eliminated. Although the results of the multiple regression analyses with their added statistical power would have been preferable, it became readily apparent that the variables were highly Intercorrelated which indicated that the analyses of variance were most appropriate. However, it is important to note that in some Instances, there were a limited number of subjects in the anger-in and anger-out levels, particularly when the interactional effects of these variables were examined. 142 Therefore, the Implications of these analyses of variance should be considered cautiously. This limitation pertains only to the final two hypotheses. Obviously, the results of this study are most relevant to college student populations. The generallzablllty of these results beyond this population is limited. However, In view of the new and exploratory nature of this study, the results are of considerable Interest and value in the examination of women and anger. Implications From a theoretical perspective, this study offers further support for the significant impact of sex role classification. The association among sex role type and individual differences in anger proneness, the tendency to express anger toward other people or objects in the environment, anger suppression, and anger control, suggest that the be havioral consequences of traditional sex roles are Important factors re lated to the manner in which anger is expressed. Furthermore, the manner in which the individual experiences anger is a critical factor related to several aspects of that individual's mental health. The results of this study did not unequivocally support the Issue raised earlier that androgyny is the critical variable involved in the healthy expression of anger resulting in sound mental health. However, the results do suggest that androgynous individuals tend to control the experience of anger. When anger expression was viewed multlvarlately, both gender and sex role emerged as important potential determinants in the apparent 143 relationship of mental health difficulties and anger expression, particularly anger suppression. This lends support to the prevailing belief that women do experience anger differently than men. Women who acknowledge significant anger tended to suppress it, while men who acknowledged significant anger tended to express it with aggression and acting-out behavior. However, anger suppression can be implicated in the problematic expression of anger for both women and men. Thus, it would appear from these results that both women and men express anger Ineffectively. However, men also obtained high scores on various aspects of assertlveness, even though they reported aggressive acting- out behaviors. Therefore, women, unlike men, may suffer more negative consequences as a result of ineffective anger expression and lack of assertlveness skills. In view of the gender and sex role factors apparent in the rela tionship of mental health difficulties and anger expression, the APÂ and Division 17 guidelines and principles for therapy with women might be expanded to address the Issue of anger and the therapist's role in facilitating the healthy expression of anger. Likewise, in view of the difficulties with anger expression evidenced by both women and men, professionals working with male clients must also be aware of Important issues of anger expression, particularly hostile/aggressing acting-out behavior and anger suppression. It appears from this study that the Ineffective expression of anger is an important therapeutic Issue for both women and men and a critical Issue depending on the Individual's sex role classification. The issue of anger expression and its effects on mental health 144 functioning may be especially relevant to Individuals suffering from depression, anxiety or stress related disorders, and personality dis orders. Helping these Individuals change their definition of sex- appropriate behavior and the Ideal standard against which they evaluate their own behavior might be extremely helpful. Additionally, facilitating change In the manner In which these Individuals express anger might also be very beneficial. The results of this study suggest that the psychology of women, particularly the field of counseling women, should continue to maintain anger as an Issue of primary Importance. Sex role Issues should also continue to be emphasized. Ideally, education regarding the effects of sex role classification and anger expression should be provided to all Individuals at an early age so Informed decisions regarding the implications of various behaviors can be made. This might help prevent the need for psychological intervention in the future. Further research regarding anger expression needs to be con ducted with additional emphasis being placed on the effects of sex role classification. Also, the examination of various aspects of anger and other mental health variables would provide a more comprehensive picture. Scientists and practitioners alike need to coordinate their efforts so that the results of research in this area can have a posi tive impact on clinical practice. 145 REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, third edition, revised. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. American Psychological Association. (1978). Guidelines for therapy with women. American Psychologist, 33, 1122-1123. American Psychological Association. (1981). Ethical principles of psychologists (revised). American Psychologist, 36, 633-638. Barker, L. R. (1979). Personality variables as determinants of performance problems of recruits in the U.S. armed forces. Unpublished master's thesis. University of South Florida. Beck, A. T. (1978). Beck Inventory. Philsdephia, PA: Center for Cognitive Therapy. Beck, A. T., & Beamesderfer, A. (1974). Assessment of depression: The depression inventory. In P. Plchot (Ed.), Modern problems in pharamcopsychiatry. Volume 7. Basel, Switzerland: Karger. Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1984). Internal consistencies of the original and revised Beck depression Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 1365-1367. Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 561-571. Belle, D. (1980). Who uses mental health facilities? In M. Guttentag, S. Salasin, & D. Belle (Eds.), The mental health of women (pp. 1-20). New York: Academic Press. Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162. Bern, L. L. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 634-643. Bern, S. L. (1979). Theory and measurement of androgyny: A reply to the Pedhazur-Tetenbaum and Locksley-Colten critiques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1047-1054. Bem, S. L. (1981). Bern sex-role inventory; Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. 146 Bernardez-Bonesattl, T. (1978). Women and anger: Conflicts with aggression in contemporary women. Journal of the American Medical Women's Association, 33, 215-219. Biaggio, M. K., Suppléé, K., & Curtis, N. (1981). Reliability and validity of four anger scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 639-648. Borgen, F. H., & Barnett, D. C. (1987). Applying cluster analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 456-468. Brautigam, V. W. (1956). Analyse der hypochondrlschen selbstbeobachtung. Nervenarzt, 27. 409-418. Brodsky, A. (1973). The consciousness-raising group as a model of therapy with women. Psychotherapy; Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 24-29. Brodsky, A. M., & Hare-Mustln, R. T. (1980). Psychotherapy and women: Priorities for research. In A. M. Brodsky & R. T. Hare-Mustin (Eds.), Women and psychotherapy: An assessment of research and practice (pp. 385-409). New York: Guilford Press. Broverman, I. K., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., Rosenkrantz, P. S., , & Vogel, S. R. (1970). Sex-role stereotypes and clinical judg ments of mental health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 1-7. Brown, H. N., & Vaillant, G, E. (1981). Hypochondrias. Archives of Internal Medicine, 141, 723-726. Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 343- 349. Campbell, I. M., Burgess, P. M., & Finch, S. J. (1984). A factorial analysis of BDI scores. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 992-996. Carmen, E. H., Russo, N. F., & Miller, J. B. (1984). Inequality and women's mental health. In P. P. Rleker & E. H. Carmen (Eds.), The gender gap in psychotherapy; Social realities and psychological processes (pp. 17-39). New York; Plenum Press. Chesler, P. (1972). Women and madness. New York: Avon Books. Chesler, P. (1976). Patient and patriarch; Women in the psycho therapeutic relationship. In S. Cox (Ed.), Female psychology; The emerging self (pp. 318-334). Chicago: Science Research As sociates, Inc. 147 Cllne-Naffzlger, C. (1974). Women's lives and frustration, oppres sion, and anger: Some alternatives. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 21, 51-56. Collier, H. V. (1982). Counseling women; A guide for therapists. New York: The Free Press. Constantinople, A. (1973). Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 80, 389-407. Cook, E. P. (1987). Psychological androgyny: A review of the research. The Counseling Psychologist, 15, 471-513. Edwards, A. L. (1959). Manual of the Edwards personal preference schedule. New York: The Psychological Corporation. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual for the Eysenck personality questionnaire. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service. Fitts, W. H. (1965). Tennessee self-concept scale manual. Nashville: Counselor Recordings and Tests. Fitzgerald, L. F., & Nutt, R. (1986). The division 17 principles concerning the counseling/psychotherapy of women: Rationale and implementation. The Counseling Psychologist. 14. 180-216. Flaherty, J. F., & Dusek, J. B. (1980). An investigation of the rela tionship between psychological androgyny and components of self- concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 984- 992. Frank, E., Carpenter, L. L., Kupfer, D. J. (1988). Sex differences in recurrent depression: Are there any that are significant? American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 41-45. Franzoi, S. L. (1985). Review of the interpersonal behavior survey. In J. V. Mitchell (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook. Volume I. Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press. Freud, S. (1927). Some psychological consequences of the anatomical distinction between the sexes. The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, VIII, 133-142. 148 Funkensteln, D. H., King, S. H., & Drolette, M. E. (1954). The direction of anger during a laboratory stress-inducing situation. Psycho somatic Medicine, 16, 404-413. Galassl, J. P., DeLo, J. P. S., Galassl, M. D., & Bastlen, S. (1974). The college self-expression scale: A measure of assertiveness. Behavior Therapy. 165-171. Gentry, W. D., Chesney, A. P., Gary, H. G., Hall, R. P., & Harburg, E. (1982). Habitual anger-coping styles: I. Effect on mean blood pressure and risk for essential hypertension. Psychosomatic Medicine, 44, 195-202, Gilbert, L. A. (1980). Feminist therapy. In A. M. Brodsky & R. T. Hare-Mustin (Eds.), Women and psychotherapy; An assessment of research and practice (pp. 245-265). New York; Guilford Press. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press. Gough, H. G. (1975). California psychological inventory manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Griscom, J. L. (1979). Sex, race and class: Three dimensions of women's experience. The Counseling Psychologist. 9^ , 10-11. Grosch, M. (1958). Uber hypochondrie. Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine, 195-205. Guttentag, M., & Salasln, S. (1976). Women, men and mental health. In L. A. Carter & A. F. Scott (Eds.), Women and men; Changing roles, relationships, and perceptions (pp. 153-179). New York; Aspen Institute. Guttentag, M., Salasln, S., & Belle, D. (1980). The mental health of women. New York: Academic Press. Harburg, E., Erfurt, J. C., Hauenstein, L. S., Chape, C., Schull, W. J., & Schork, M. A. (1973). Socio-ecologlcal stress, suppressed hostility, skin color, and black-white male blood pressure; Detroit. Psychosomatic Medicine, 35, 276-296. Harris, I. D. (1951). Mood, anger, and somatic dysfunction. Journal of Nervous Mental Disorders, 113, 152-158. Hathaway, S. R., & McKlnley, J. C. (1951). Minnesota multiphasic personality Inventory manual. New York: The Psychological Corpora tion. 149 Hellbrun, A. B., Jr. (1981). Gender differences In the functional linkage between androgyny, social cognition, and competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1106-1^ 118. Hutzell, R. R. (1985). Review of the Interpersonal behavior survey. In J. V. Mitchell (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook. Volume I. Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press. Jordan, J., Surrey, J., & Kaplan, A. (1982). Empathy and the female self: Implications for therapy. Work In progress. Wellesley, MA: Stone Center for Developmental Services and Studies of Wellesley College. Kaplan, A. (1986). The "self-ln-relatlon:" Implications for depres sion In women. Psychotherapy, 23, 234-242. Kaplan, A., Brooks, B., McComb, A. L., Shapiro, E. R., & Sodano, A. (1983). Women and anger in psychotherapy. Women and Therapy, 2, 29-40. Kaplan, A. G., & Yaslnskl, L. (1980). Psychodynamic perspectives. In A. M. Brodsky & R. T. Hare-Mustln (Eds.), Women and psycho therapy: An assessment of research and practice (pp. 191-215). New York: Guilford Press. Kellner, R., Slocumb, J., Wiggins, R. G., Abbott, P. J., Wlnslow, W. W., & Pathak, D. (1985). Hostility, somatic symptoms, and hypo- chondrlcal fears and beliefs. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 17, 554-560. Kelman, H. (1967). Feminine psychology. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Knott, P. D. (1970). A further methodological study of the measure ment of interpersonal aggression. Psychological Reports, 26, 807-809. Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press. Lehrman, H. (1974, September). What happens in feminist therapy? Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA. Lemkau, J. P., & Landau, C. (1986). The "selfless syndrome:" As sessment and treatment considerations. Psychotherapy, 23, 227- Lerner, H. (1977). The taboos against female anger. Menninger Perspective, Winter, 5-11. 150, Lerner, H. E. (1980). Internai prohibitions against female anger. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 40, 137-148. Lerner, H. G. (1985). The dance of anger. New York; Harper & Row. Lippa, R. (1985). Review of Bern sex-role inventory. In J. V. Mitchell, Jr. (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook. Volume I. Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press. Lubinski, D., Tellegen, A., & Butcher, J. N. (1981). The relationship between androgyny and subjective indicators of emotional well- being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 722- 730. Major, B., Carnevale, P. J. D., & Deaux, K. (1981). A different perspective on androgyny: Evaluations of masculine and feminine personality characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 988-1001. Maracek, J., Kravetz, D., & Finn, S. (1979). A comparison of women who enter feminist therapy and traditional therapy. Journal of Con sulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 734-742. Mauger, P. A., & Adkinson, D. R. (1980). Interpersonal behavior survey (IBS) manual. Los Angeles, CA; Western Psychological Services. Mauger, P. A., Adkinson, D. R., Zoss, S. K., Firestone, G., & Hook, D. (1980). Interpersonal behavior survey (IBS). Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. Mednick, M. T. S. (1978). Psychology of women: Research issues and trends. New York Academy of Science Small Antials, 30, 77-92. Metcalfe, M., & Goldman, E. (1965). Validation of an inventory for measuring depression. British Journal of Psychiatry, 111, 240- 242. Miller, J. B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Miller, J. B. (1983). The construction of anger in women and men. Work in progress. Wellesley, MA: Stone Center for Developmental Services and Studies of Wellesley College. Nutt, R. L. (1979). Review and preview of attitudes and values of counselors of women. Counseling Psychologist, S, 18-20. Orlinsky, D. E., & Howard, K. I. (1980). Gender and psychotherapeutic outcome. In A. M. Brodsky & R. T. Hare-Mustin (Eds.), Women and 151 Psychotherapy; An assessment of research and practice (pp. 3-34). New York: Guilford Press. Parlee, M. B. (1979, September). The psychology of women; Phenomena in search of a paradigm. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York. Payne, F. D. (1985). Review of Bern sex-role inventory. In J, V. Mitchell, Jr. (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook. Volume I. Lincoln, NE; The University of Nebraska Press. Petzel, T. P., & Michaels, E. J. (1973). Perceptions of violence as a function of levels of hostility. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 35-36. Phares, E. J. (1984). Sex roles. In E. J. Phares (Ed.), Introduction to personality (pp. 582-611). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. Pollans, C. H. (1983). The psychometric properties and factor structure of the anger expression scale. Unpublished master's thesis. University of South Florida. President's Commission on Mental Health: Subpanel on the Mental Health of Women. (1978), Report to the President, Volume III. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 1022-1116. Rado, S. (1956). Psychoanalysis of behavior. New York; Grune & Stratton. Rathus, S. A. (1973). A 30-ltem schedule for assessing assertive be havior. Behavior Therapy, 398-406. Rawlings, E. I., & Carter, D. K. (1977). Psychotherapy for women; Treatment toward equality, Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Renson, G. L., Adams, J. E., & Tinklenberg, J. R. (1978). Buss-Durkee assessment and validation with violent versus nonviolent chronic alcohol abusers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 360-361. Reynolds, W. M., & Gould, J. W. (1981). A psychometric investigation of the standard and short form Beck depression Inventory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 306-307, Richardson, M. S., & Johnson, M. (1984). Counseling women. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 832-877). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Ferguson, M. L. (1978). Developing a measure of loneliness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42, 290-294. 152 Scarf, M. (1980). Unfinished business; Pressure points In the lives of women. New York: Ballantlne Books. Schaefer, A., Brown, J., Watson, C. G., Plemel, D., DeMotts, J., Howard, M. T., Petrlk, N., & Ballewlg, B. J. (1985). Comparison of the validities of the Beck, Zung, and MMPl depression scales. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 415-418. Schechter, M. D., & Rand, M. J. (1974). Effects of acute deprivation of smoking on aggression and hostility. Psychopharmacologia, 35, 19-28. Schwaub, J. J., Blalow, M. R., & Holzer, C. E. (1967). A comparison of the rating scales for depression. Journal of Clinical Psychology, W, 94-96. Shaw, J. S. (1982). Psychological androgyny and stressful life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 43, 145-153. Smith, M. L. (1980). Sex bias in counseling and psychotherapy. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 392-407. Spence, J., Helmrelch, R., & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 32, 29-39. Spielberger, C. D. (1980). Preliminary manual for the state-trait anger scale (STAS). Tampa, FL: Center for Research in Community Psychology. Spielberger, C. D. (1986). The anger expression (AX) scale. Tampa, FL: Center for Research in Behavioral Medicine and Community Psychology. Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R, L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Also, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. Spielberger, C. D., Jacobs, G., Crane, R., Russell, S., Westberry, L., Barker, L., Johnson, E., Knight, J., & Marks, E. (1979). Preliminary manual for the state-trait personality inventory (STPI). Tampa, FL: University of South Florida Human Resources Institute. Spielberger, C. D., Jacobs, 6., Russell, S., & Crane, R. S. (1983). Assessment of anger: The state-trait anger scale. In J. N. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality as sessment : Volume 2 (pp. 159-187). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA. 153a Splelberger, C. D., Johnson, E. H., Russell, S. F., Crane, F. J., Jacobs, G. A., & Worden, T. J. (1985). The experience and expres sion of anger: Construction and validation of an anger expression scale. In M. A. Chesney & R. H. Rosenman (Eds.), Anger and hostility in cardiovascular and behavioral disorders (pp. 5-30). New York; McGraw-Hill. Spielberger, C. D., & London, P. (1982). Rage Boomerangs: A key to preventing coronaries is emerging: Learn to handle anger and avoid seven deadly responses. American Health, 1^ , 52-56. Spielberger, C. D., Peters, R. A., & Frain, F. (1981). Curiosity and anxiety. In H. G. Voss & H. Keller (Eds.), Curiosity research; Basic concepts and results. Weinheim, Federal Republic of Germany: Beltz. Statistical Analysis Sytem. (1985). SAS user's guide; Statistics. Gary, NC: SAB Institute, Inc. Strachey, J. (1966). Introductory lectures on psychoanalysis. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. (Original work published 1917.) Strahan, R. F. (1982, August). Methods for the measurement and statistical analysis of psychological androgyny. Paper presented at the 90th Annual Convention of the American Psychological As sociation, Washington, DC. Tanabe, K. (1973). A clinical study on hypochrondriasis. Kyushv Neuro-Psychlatry. 19, 73-109. Tangrl, S. S., & Strasburg, G. L. (1979). Can research on women be more effective in shaping policy? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 3, 321-343. Tavrls, C. (1982, November). Anger defused. Psychology Today, pp. 25-35. Wahl, C. W. (1963). Unconscious factors in the psychodynamlcs of the hypochrondrlacal patient. Psychosomatlcs, 9-14. Waterman, A. S., & Whitbourne, S. K. (1982). Androgyny and psycho social development among college students and adults. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50. 121-133. Weissman, M., Fox, K., & Klerman, G. L. (1973). Hostility and depres sion associated with suicide attempts. American Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 450-455. Weissman, M., & Klerman, G. L. (1977). Sex differences and the epidemiology of depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 34, 128, 41-46. 153b Welssman, M. M., Klerman, G. L., & Paykel, E. S. (1971). Clinical evaluation of hostility in depression. American Journal of Psychiatry, 128, 261-266. Westberry, L. G. (1980). Concurrent validation of the trait-anger scale and its correlation with other personality measures. Unpublished master's thesis. University of South Florida. Westkott, M. (1986). Historical and developmental roots of female dependency. Psychotherapy, 23, 213-220. Wetzel, J. W. (1984). Clinical handbook of depression. New York: Gardner Press. Worrell, J. (1976, April). Issues in counseling women. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA. Worrell, J. (1981). New directions in counseling women. In E. Howell & M. Hayes (Eds.), Women and mental health. New York; Basic Books. Young, L. (1976). Personality characteristics of high and low aggres sive adolescents in residential treatment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 814-817. Zung, W. W. K. (1974). The measure of affects: Depression and anxiety. In P. Pichot (Ed.), Psychological measurements in psychopharmacology: Modern problems in pharmacopsychiatry (Volume 7). Basel, Switzerland : Karger. 154a ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am Indebted and wish to express my sincere appreciation to my major professor, Dr. Douglas L. Epperson, for his unending support and guidance, not only throughout the writing of this dissertation, but throughout my entire program as well. Doug exemplifies what is truly meant by a mentor of the highest quality. I am also indebted to Dr. Frederick H. Borgen for his enthusiastic support and direction throughout this and all phases of my academic career at Iowa State. Gratitude is also extended to Dr. Robert F. Strahan, for his helpful suggestions and support, especially in reference to the statistical analysis of this dissertation. Appreciation is also extended to Drs. Craig M. Allen and Rosalie H. Norem, for their helpful suggestions and guidance, particularly in the initial phases of this study. I would like to express my sincere appreciation of my parents, Richard and Elizabeth Kopper, for their sacrifice, guidance, and unending support. Their dedication and commitment to their children and education has made this all possible. I am also grateful for the support of my brother and sister, Craig Kopper and Jill Sheffler. And last, but not least, my sincere appreciation and special thanks for my husband, Carroll Roland, for his unfailing support, encouragement, and strength in surviving this ordeal. Finally, I would like to extend a special thanks to two of my friends, Beverly Westra and Alice Hyland, for their encouragement, help, and humor. I would also like to thank Letha DeMoss for preparing this manuscript — her work is beyond compare. I am also grateful to 154b the Human Subjects for Research Review Committee of Iowa State University for their review and approval of this study. 155 APPENDIX A. TEST BOOKLET PLEASE NOTE: Copyrighted materials in this document have not been filmed at the request of the author. They are available for consultation, however, in the author's university library. These consist of pages; P. 156-183 184 APPENDIX B. INSTRUCTIONS FOR TESTING BOOKLET ADMINISTRATION 185 INSTRUCTIONS FOR TESTING BOOKLET ADMINISTRATION GOOD MORN ING/AFTERNOON ! My name is and I'd like to thank you all for coming today. This is experiment 11 and I will be asking you to fill out several questionnaires contained in a testing booklet. I appreciate your willingness to take the time to complete this booklet - it should take approximately 1 1/2 to 2 hours. I would like you to now look at the first page that you have titled "CONSENT FORM". Your participation in this study is voluntary and you are free to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation in the study at any time. Please read through the CONSENT FORM now. If you have any questions at this time or at a later time, simply raise your hand and I will be glad to respond. If there are no (more) questions and if you agree to participate in this study, please sign and date the Consent Form in the spaces provided at the bottom of the form. When you have finished, please hand the Consent Forms forward to me. By handing in your consent form, there will be no name or other personal identification associated with your responses. This is another way to make sure that the information you provide is anonymous and remains confidential. (SUBJECTS READ, SIGN, AND HAND IN CONSENT FORMS) On the next page, you will find a FEEDBACK SHEET. If you do desire feedback regarding the results of your questionnaires, record the number on your answer sheet on the FEEDBACK SHEET and take it with you. This number is the only means of identifying which questionnaires are yours. This sheet will also tell you how to go about obtaining feedback. Whether you decide to obtain feedback is totally voluntary and up to you. You are under no obligation to do so. There are several questionnaires contained in your booklet, each with their own instructions. Please carefully read and follow instructions. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one question. Mark all answers on the appropriate answer sheet using a number 2 pencil. Do NOT fill in your name, sex, birth date, identification number, or special codes. I would like you to now fill in a number under the GRADE CATEGORY using the following code: IsFRESHMAN 2=SOPHOMORE 3=JUNI0R 4=SENI0R 5=0THER (SUBJECTS FILL IN GRADE NUMBER) 186 Please begin now by reading carefully the instructions for the questionnaires and marking your responses on the appropriate answer sheet. When you have responded to all of the questions, return all materials to me. Please begin. 187 APPENDIX C. PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR SAMPLE VARIABLES BY SEX 10 SAS SEX=i; WOMEN PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS GRADE RACE AGE MARITAL DADEO MOMEO HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS STAST ID 1.00000 O.OOOO 242 -0.02323 0.7204 240 0.01549 0.8105 242 -0.01099 0.8650 242 0.03203 0.6200 242 GRADE -0.02323 0.7204 240 1.00000 O.OOOO 240 0.09934 0.1249 240 0.55932 0.0001 240 0.19323 0.0026 240 RACE 0.01549 0.8105 242 0.09934 O.1249 240 1.00000 O.OOOO 242 0.15846 0.0136 242 0.11563 0.0726 242 AGE -0.01099 0.8650 242 0.55932 0.0001 240 0.15846 0.0136 242 1.00000 O.OOOO 242 -0.00339 0.9581 242 MARITAL 0.03203 0.6200 242 0.19323 0.0026 240 O.11563 0.0726 242 -0.00339 0.9581 242 1.00000 0.0000 242 0.2708 242 O.1564 240 0.9104 242 0.8357 242 0.0024 242 0.9479 242 O. 1588 240 0.1494 242 0.4079 242 0.1751 242 0.7800 238 0.01098 0.8668 236 0.9052 241 0.6367 242 0.7179 242 0.9425 242 O.1924 242 O.10736 -O.12861 -0.03154 -O.04511 -0.06983 0.0977 0.0466 0.6268 . 0.4867 0.2813 239 240 240 240 240 O.01881 -0.04651 0.03507 -O.10594 0.01262 0.10756 0.7728 0.4724 0.5872 0.1001 0.8452 0.0950 238 241 242 242 242 242 0.2549 238 0.7799 238 0.8745 241 0.3353 241 O.1654 242 0.2650 242 0.2129 242 0.8706 242 0.4788 242 0.5535 242 0.4771 242 0.8336 242 DADED MOMED 0.07106 -0.09177 -0.00727 0.01340 -0.19438 1.00000 0.2708 O.1564 0.9104 0.8357 0.0024 0.0000 242 240 242 242 242 242 -0.00422 -0.09124 -0.09296 -0.05344 -0.08745 O.57466 0.9479 O.1588 0.1494 0.4079 0.1751 0.0001 242 240 242 242 242 242 0.57466 0.0001 242 1-OOOOO O.OOOO 242 0.18110 -O.13198 O.04661 -0.07385 -0.00420 -0.03918 0.0051 0.0406 0.4704 0.2524 0.9482 0.5441 238 241 242 242 242 242 O.12881 -O.13048 0.03367 0.03613 -0.06314 -0.07125 0.0472 0.0430 0.6023 0.5760 0.3280 0.2696 238 241 242 242 242 242 00 00 HOME PLACE RSA RSB 0.01820 0.01098 0.7800 0.8668 238 236 0.00771 0.9052 241 0.0977 239 0.7728 238 0.4724 241 .2549 238 0.8745 241 -0.03051 -O.12861 0.6367 0.0466 242 240 O.03507 -0.08946 0.5872 O.1654 242 - 242 -0.02334 -0.03154 -0.10594 -0.08035 0.7179 0.6268 O.1001 0.2129 242 240 242 242 -0.01820 O. 18110 0.7799 0.0051 238 238 -0.06233 -O.13198 0.3353 0.0406 241 241 0.07194 0.04661 0.2650 0.4704 242 242 0.01053 -0.07385 0.8706 0.2524 242 242 O.12881 0.0472 238 -O.13048 0.0430 241 O.03367 0.6023 242 1 OOOOO 0.0000 238 0.13771 0.0341 237 O.13771 0.0341 237 0.07706 0.2363 238 1.00000 -0.06307 O.OOOO 0.3295 241 241 0.07706 -0.06307 0.2363 0.3295 238 241 0.03613 -0.12873 .5760 242 0.0473 238 0.01810 0.7798 241 1.00000 O.OOOO 242 O. 12719 0.0481 242 -0.12873 0.05945 0.01620 0.0473 0.3612 0.8037 238 238 238 0.01810 0.08215 0.01685 0.7798 0.2038 0.7946 241 241 241 0.12719 -0.09939 -0.10566 0.0481 0.1231 0.1011 242 242 242 1.00000 -O.11244 -0.01046 O.OOOO 0.0809 0.8714 242 242 242 STASS -0.00466 0.9425 242 -0.04511 0.01262 0.4867 0.8452 240 242 -0.04574 -O.03827 0.4788 0.5535 242 242 -0.00420 -0.06314 0.9482 0.3280 242 242 0.05945 0.08215 0.3612 0.2038 238 241 -O.09939 -O.11244 O.1231 0.0809 242 242 1.OOOOO 0.40855 O.OOOO 0.0001 242 242 SAS STAST AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BOI DENIAL INFREO IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGD ID -0.08409 O.1924 242 O.03248 0.6151 242 0.00991 0.8781 242 -0.00969 0.8807 242 0.02312 0.7205 242 -0.03014 0.6408 242 -O.10660 0.0980 242 0.01435 0.8242 242 -0.02710 0.6749 242 0.08302 O.1981 242 0.06405 0.3210 242 0.04193 0.5163 242 -0.00906 0.8885 242 SEX=1 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO:RHO= GRADE RACE AGE MARITAL DADED MOMED HOME -0.06983 0.10756 0.04592 -0.01358 -0.03918 -0.07125 G.01620 0.2813 0.0950 0.4771 0.8336 0.5441 0.2696 0.8037 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 -0.02324 0.05664 0.07445 0.05268 -0.01211 -0.04727 -0.16651 0.7202 0.3803 0.2486 0.4146 0.8513 0.4642 0.0101 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 -O.19251 0.02076 -0.03448 -0.07085 -0.00417 -0.01809 0.01615 0.0027 0.7479 0.5935 0.2723 0.9485 0.7795 0.8043 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 -0.09204 -O.11597 -0.09000 -0.09923 -O.06462 O.01473 0.05118 0.1552 0.0717 0.1628 0.1237 0.3168 0.8196 0.4320 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 -O.04467 0.09300 0.06339 O.04322 0.02643 0.03555 -0.09013 0.4909 0.1492 0.3261 0.5034 0.6825 0.5821 O.1658 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 -0.00732 0.07440 O.09215 O.01362 -0.07096 -0.04209 -0.11000 0.9102 0.2489 O.1530 0.8331 0.2715 0.5146 0.0904 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 0.08118 0.13046 0.05487 0.12488 -0.09700 -0.09920 0.06499 0.2102 0.0426 0.3954 0.0523 O.1324 O.1238 0.3181 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 -0.04818 0.24538 0.04041 -0.03903 0.03548 0.02244 O.02747 0.457S 0.0001 0.5316 0.5456 0.5829 0.7283 0.6733 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 -0.02438 0.04416 -0.09264 0.07356 -0.03045 -0.02307 0.09240 0.7071 0.4942 0.1508 0.2543 0.6374 0.7211 0.1553 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 -0.05359 O.07156 -0.00773 -0.08100 -0.06126 -0.01481 -0.04758 0.4086 0.2675 0.9048 0.2093 0.3427 0.8187 0.4651 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 -0.03164 0.09280 0.04G46 -0.09226 -0.07395 -0.04059 -O.10866 0.6258 O.1501 0.4719 0.1525 0.2518 0.5297 0.0944 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 -0.06394 0.06977 0.04478 0.06894 -0.03336 -0.01340 -0.09784 0.3239 0.2797 0.4881 0.2854 0.6056 0.8357 0.1323 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 -0.00181 O.17396 0.05297 -0.06817 -O.18192 -0.03963 O.12738 0.9777 0.0067 0.4120 0.2909 0.0045 0.5395 0.0497 240 242 242 242 242 242 238 O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS PLACE RSA RSB 0.0168S -0.10566 -0.01046 0.7946 0.1011 0.8714 241 242 242 -O.00118 -0.04268 0.19936 0.9854 0.5087 0.0018 241 242 242 -0.00274 -0.11740 0.25045 0.9662 0.0683 0.0001 241 242 242 0.05881 O.28996 0.03003 0.3634 0.0001 0.6420 241 242 242 -0.03204 -0.21853 -0.03836 0.6207 0.0006 0.5526 241 242 242 -0.03409 -0.07819 -O.21728 0.5984 0.2255 0.0007 241 242 242 0.07559 0.14777 0.09477 0.2424 0.0215 0.1416 241 242 242 -0.03627 -O.23488 0.06316 0.5753 0.0002 0.3279 241 242 242 -0.06805 0.19132 0.08137 0.2927 0.0028 0.2072 241 242 242 0.01087 -O.46189 0.02808 0.8667 0.0001 0.6638 241 242 242 0.04214 -O.39877 0.09018 0.5150 0.0001 0.1620 241 242 242 0.01205 -O.12282 0.15662 0.8523 0.0564 0.0147 241 242 242 -O.00929 -0.38174 0.11599 0.8860 0.0001 0.0717 241 242 242 STASS STAST 0.40855 1.00000 0.0001 O.OOOO 242 242 0.26833 O.60838 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 0.25460 0.30325 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 -0.20724 -0.56760 0.0012 0.0001 242 242 0.33104 0.68309 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 O.35278 0.50025 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 -O.15218 -O.34814 0.0178 0.0001 242 242 O.16107 O.39691 0.0121 0.0001 242 242 -O.19731 -0.45990 0.0020 0.0001 242 242 0.23607 O.49464 0.0002 O.OOOl 242 242 O.15886 O.42744 0.0134 O.OOOl 242 242 0.36141 0.63391 0.0001 O.OOOl 242 242 0.09639 O.37851 O.1349 O.OOOl 242 242 00 vo SAS VERBALAG ID 0.08601 O.1824 242 SEX=1 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PRQB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS GRADE RACE AGE MARITAL DADED MOMED HOME -0.00051 0.02419 0.06503. -0.01018 0.00588 0.00262 -0.03381 0.9938 0.7081 0.3137 0.8748 0.9275 0.9676 0.6037 g40 242 242 242 242 242 238 PHYSAGG -0.00971 -0.01317 0.08812 O.01789 0.00476 -O.18339 -0.04767 -0.04989 O.1718 0.7819 0.9412 0.0042 0.4604 0.4437 242 242 242 242 242 238 PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS DEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REOESTHE REFUSDEM CCNFLAVD DEPENDCY 0.8B05 0.8391 242 240 -0.02091 -0.05632 0.7463 0.3850 242 240 0.04151 0.06576 0.5204 0.3103 242 240 0.00504 0.12260 0.9378 0.0579 242 240 0.01851 0.01190 0.7745 0.8545 242 240 O.04259 0.09858 0.5096 0.1278 242 240 -0.00575 0.09886 0.9291 0.1267 242 240 0.04691 0.08040 0.4676 0.2146 242 240 -0.03968 0.08714 0.5390 0.1785 242 240 0.06076 0.12590 0.3466 0.0514 242 240 -0.06683 -0.06483 0.3005 0.3173 242 240 -0.03455 -0.12006 0.5927 0.0633 242 240 0.13596 0.05711 -0.05653 -0.04463 -0.01668 0.01114 0.0345 242 0.3764 242 0.3813 242 0.4895 242 0.7963 242 0.8643 238 PLACE RSA RSB STASS STAST 0.04093 0.5271 241 -0.27307 0.0001 242 0.17972 0.0050 242 0.17426 0.0066 242 0.42188 0.0001 242 0.05572 0.3892 241 -O.15410 0.0164 242 0.17730 O.OOS7 242 0.27240 0.0001 242 0.35099 0.0001 242 0.04885 0.4503 241 -0.08688 0.1780 242 -O.16796 0.0088 242 0.30156 0.0001 242 O.59951 0.0001 242 -0.21778 0.03222 -0.08862 0.05970 0.06388 -O.14084 0.0006 242 0.2166 242 0.6179 242 0.4606 242 O.1694 242 0.8378 242 0.3551 242 0.9463 242 0.3224 242 0.4302 242 0.0298 238 0.0978 238 0.00511 -0.04315 O.67554 0.9372 0.5041 0.0001 241 242 242 -0.04683 0.04127 0.41286 0.4693 0.5229 0.0001 241 242 242 -0.26270 -0.03595 -0.11705 0.08121 0.0S310 -O.11748 0.0001 242 0.5779 242 0.0691 242 0.2081 242 0.4108 242 0.0704 238 -O.13449 0.01243 -0.01717 -0.0141B O.12117 -0.15467 0.0365 242 0.8474 242 0.7905 242 0.8263 242 0.0598 242 0.0169 238 0.06350 O.03754 0.67193 0.3263 0.5611 0.0001 241 242 242 0.53201 0.0001 242 -0.03317 -0.09031 0.6084 0.1614 241 242 -0.04621 0.02652 -0.00214 0.05964 0.09487 -O.08044 0.4743 242 0.6815 242 0.9735 242 0.3556 242 0.1411 242 0.2163 238 -0.08S58 0.02327 -0.02755 0.06252 0.10011 0.06396 0.1846 242 0.7188 242 0.6698 242 0.3328 242 0.1204 242 0.325S 238 -O.02666 O.04287 -0.02732 -0.06428 0.01039 -0.09293 0.6799 242 0.5069 242 0.6724 242 0.3193 242 0.8722 242 O.1529 238 -0.20183 0.03632 0.02516 0.00921 0.0016 242 0.5739 242 O.6970 242 O.8866 242 0.06645 -0.06460 0.3033 0.3210 242 238 O.09954 -0.02336 0.00174 -0.05686 -0.08555 0.12975 O.1225 242 0.7177 242 0.978S 242 0.3785 242 O.1847 242 0.0455 238 0.16484 0.03549 -0.02841 0.09861 0.01966 O.13108 0.0102 242 0.5827 242 0.6601 242 0 .1261 242 0.7609 242 0.0434 238 -0.04101 O.01976 0.49733 0.5264 0.7597 0.0001 241 242 242 -0.08461 0.13737 0.29040 O.1905 0.0327 0.0001 241 242 242 -0.05001 -0.04136 0.28205 0.4397 O.5220 0.0001 241 242 242 0.01971 -0.10514 0.34869 0.7G08 0.1027 0.0001 241 242 242 -O.00111 0.06402 -O.51350 0.9863 0.3213 0.0001 241 242 242 -0.01446 O 17877 -O.44663 0.8232 0.0053 0.0001 241 242 242 -0.06489 0.3148 242 -0.24021 0.0002 242 -O.13468 0.0363 242 -0.24657 0.0001 242 -0.06275 0.3310 242 -O.18431 0.0040 242 -O.14382 0.02S3 242 -0.17887 0.0053 242 O.02847 0.6594 242 O.25315 0.0001 242 -0.02633 0.6837 242 -O.36436 0.0001 242 -O.19344 0.0025 242 -O.12799 0.0467 242 -0.01777 0.7833 242 -0.33901 0.0001 242 -O.15858 0.0135 242 -0.23480 0.0002 242 -O.10052 0.1189 242 0.31795 0.0001 242 VO O I SAS SEX=1 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS ID GRADE RACE AGE MARITAL DADED MOMEO HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS STAST SHY -O.04913 0.4468 242 0.04774 0.4617 240 0.20063 0.0017 242 0.03613 0.5759 242 0.09791 0.1288 242 -0.13239 0.0396 242 -0.09674 0.1334 242 0.06826 0.2943 238 -0.08706 0.1780 241 -O.18794 0.0033 242 -O.45369 0.0001 242 0.13261 0.0393 242 0.22431 0.0004 242 ASSAULT -0.00202 0.9751 242 -0.07521 0.2457 240 0.08914 0.1669 242 -O.10195 0.1137 242 0.02861 0.6578 242 -0.06772 0.2940 242 0.02171 0.7369 242 -0.02060 0.7518 238 -0.08574 0.1846 241 -0.08661 0.1793 242 0.17088 0.0077 242 0.16361 0.0108 242 0.42009 0.0001 242 INDIRHOS -0.06965 0.2805 242 -0.10060 0.1201 240 -0.02392 0.7112 242 -0.00419 0.9483 242 0.04177 0.5179 242 0.10610 0.0996 242 0.02850 0.6591 242 -0.07772 0.2323 238 0.00998 0.8775 241 0.00131 0.9839 242 -0.01900 0.7687 242 0.24386 0.0001 242 0.35781 0.0001 242 IRRITBLE -0.02145 0.7399 242 -0.06668 0.3036 240 -0.01009 0.8759 242 0.08530 0.1860 242 -0.03234 0.6167 242 -0.00037 0.9954 242 -0.00295 0.9636 242 -0.03821 0.5575 238 0.01248 0.8471 241 -0.17354 0.0068 242 -0.14033 0.0291 242 0.32411 0.0001 242 0.59666 0.0001 242 NEGATIVE -0.03965 0.5393 242 0.01603 0.8049 240 0.06509 0.3132 242 0.13103 0.0417 242 0.00107 0.9868 242 -0.04579 0.4783 242 -0.01811 0.7793 242 -0.12070 0.0630 238 -0.05055 0.4347 241 -0.19446 0.0024 242 0.08085 0.2101 242 0.11733 0.0684 242 0.33432 0.0001 242 RESENT -O.07826 0.22S1 242 -0.02998 0.6440 240 0.00469 0.9421 242 0.06128 0.3425 242 -0.10292 O.1103 242 -0.12986 0.043G 242 -0.08170 0.2053 242 -0.05437 0.4038 238 0.02870 0.6576 241 -0.09328 0.1480 242 -O.12401 0.0540 242 0.32402 0.0001 242 0.52981 0.0001 242 SUSPICIN -0.01983 0.7590 242 -0.10242 0.1135 240 O.10268 0.1111 242 -0.05637 0.3826 242 -O.11765 0.0677 242 -0.09001 0.1628 242 -0.01030 0.8733 242 -0.02741 0.6739 238 -0.03347 0.6052 241 -0.05684 0.3787 242 -0.06827 0.2902 242 0.26211 0.0001 242 O.45974 0.0001 242 VERBLHOS 0.01001 0.8768 242 0.03834 0.5544 240 0.01412 0.8270 242 -0.00919 0.8870 242 0.07217 0.2634 242 -O.06309 0.3284 242 -0.00289 0.9644 242 -0.12375 0.0566 238 0.03553 0.5831 241 -O.11967 0.0631 242 O.36368 0.0001 242 O.10773 0.0945 242 0.43385 0.0001 242 GUILT -0.04986 0.4400 242 -0.16440 0.0107 240 0.06778 0.2936 242 -O.10331 0.1089 242 0.01034 0.8729 242 -0.00480 0.9407 242 -0.05001 0.4386 242 0.12357 0.0570 238 0.08914 0.1678 241 0.09012 0.1623 242 -0.17826 0.0054 242 0.20715 0.0012 242 0.32613 0.0001 242 TOTLHOST -0.04956 0.4428 242 -0.09795 0.1302 240 0.05848 0.3651 242 -0.00978 0.8797 242 -0.02008 0.7559 242 -0.06144 0.3412 242 -0.02273 0.7249 242 -0.06207 0.3404 238 0.00749 0.9079 241 -0.12019 0.0619 242 0.02117 0.7431 242 0.35190 0.0001 242 0.69693 0.0001 242 SEXROLE 0.06089 •0.3755 214 0.04778 0.4889 212 -O.12755 0.0625 214 -0.00714 0.9173 214 -0.04085 0.5523 214 -0.00833 0.9036 214 0.05413 0.4308 214 -0.04802 0.4889 210 -0.03256 0.6365 213 0.0482S 0.4826 214 0.51411 0.0001 214 -0.15773 0.0210 214 -0.06613 0.3357 214 AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BOX DENIAL INFREO IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGD VERBALAG ID 0.03248 0.6151 242 O.00991 0.8781 242 -O.00969 0.8807 242 O.02312 0.7205 242 -0.03014 0.6408 242 -0.10660 0.0980 242 0.01435 0.8242 242 -0.02710 0.6749 242 0.08302 0.1981 242 0.06405 0.3210 242 0.04193 0.5163 242 -0.00906 0.8885 242 0.08601 0.1824 242 SAS SEX=1 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREO IMPRESS AGGRESS 1 HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGD VERBALAG GRADE -0.02324 G.7202 240 -0.19251 0.0027 240 -0.09204 0.1552 240 -0.04467 0.4909 240 -0.00732 0.9102 240 0.08118 0.2102 240 -0.04818 0.4575 240 -0.02438 0.7071 240 -0.05359 0.4086 240 -0.03164 0.6258 240 -0.06394 0.3239 240 -0.00181 0.9777 240 -0.00051 0.9938 240 RACE 0.05664 0.3803 242 0.02076 0.7479 242 -0.11597 0.0717 242 0.09300 O.1492 242 0.07440 0.2489 242 0.13046 0.0426 242 0.24538 0.0001 242 0.04416 0.4942 242 0.07156 0.2675 242 0.09280 O.1501 242 0.06977 0.2797 242 0.17396 0.0067 242 0.02419 0.7081 242 AGE 0.07445 0.2486 242 -0.03448 0.5935 242 -0.09000 0.1628 242 O.06339 0.3261 242 0.09215 0.1530 242 -O.05487 0.3954 242 0.04041 0.5316 242 -0.09264 0.1508 242 -0.00773 0.9048 242 0.04646 0.4719 242 0.04478 0.4881 242 0.05297 0.4120 242 0.06503 0.3137 242 MARITAL 0.05268 0.4146 242 -0.07085 0.2723 242 -0.09923 0.1237 242 O.04322 0.5034 242 0.01362 0.8331 242 0.12488 0.0523 242 -0.03903 0.5456 242 0.07356 0.2543 242 -0.08100 0.2093 242 -0.09226 O.1525 242 0.06894 0.2854 242 -0.06817 0.2909 242 -0.01018 0.8748 242 OADED -0.01211 0.8513 242 -0.00417 0.9485 242 -0.C6462 0.3168 242 0.02643 0.6825 242 -0.07096 0.2715 242 -0.09700 O.1324 242 0.03548 0.5829 242 -0.03045 0.6374 242 -0.06126 0.3427 242 -0.07395 0.2518 242 -0.03336 0.6056 242 -0.18192 0.0045 242 0.00588 0.9275 242 MOMED -0.04727 0.4642 242 -0.01809 0.7795 242 0.01473 0.8196 242 -0.03555- 0.5821 242 -0.04209 0.5146 242 -0.09920 O.1238 242 0.02244 0.7283 242 -0.02307 0.7211 242 -0.01481 0.8187 242 -O.04059 0.5297 242 -0.01340 0.8357 242 -O.03963 0.5395 242 0.00262 0.9676 242 HOME -0.16651 0.0101 238 0.01615 0.8043. 238 0.05118 0.4320 238 -0.09013 O. 1658 238 -0.11000 0.0904 238 0.06499 0.3181 238 0.02747 0.6733 238 0.09240 0.1553 238 -0.04758 0.4651 238 -0.10866 0.0944 238 -0.09784 0.1323 238 -O.12738 0.0497 238 -0.03381 0.6037 238 PLACE -O.00118 0.9854 241 -O.00274 0.9662 241 0.05881 0.3634 241 -0.03204 0.6207 241 -0.03409 0.5984 241 0.07S59 0.2424 241 -0.03627 0.5753 241 -O.06805 0.2927 241 0.01087 0.8667 241 0.04214 0.5150 241 0.01205 0.8523 241 -0.00929 0.8860 241 0.04093 0.5271 241 RSA -0.04268 0.5087 242 -0.11740 0.0683 242 0.28996 0.0001 242 -0.21853 0.0006 242 -0.07819 0.2255 242 0.14777 0.0215 242 -0.23488 0.0002 242 0.19132 0.0028 242 -0.46189 0.0001 242 -0.39877 0.0001 242 -O.12282 0.0564 242 -O.38174 0.0001 242 -0.27307 0.0001 242 RSB O.19936 0.0018 242 -0.25045 0.0001 242 0.03003 0.6420 242 -O.03836 0.5526 242 -O.21728 0.0007 242 0.09477 0. 1416 242 0.06316 0.3279 242 O.08137 0.2072 242 0.02808 0.6638 242 0.09018 0. 1620 242 0. 15662 0.0147 242 O. 11599 0.0717 242 O.17972 0.0050 242 STASS O.26833 0.0001 242 0.25460 0.0001 242 -0.20724 0.0012 242 0.33104 0.0001 242 0.35278 0.0001 242 -O.15218 0.0178 242 O.16107 0.0121 242 -O.19731 0.0020 242 0.23607 0.0002 242 0.15886 0.0134 242 0.36141 0.0001 242 0.09639 O. 1349 242 0.17426 0.0066 242 STAST O.60838 0.0001 242 0.30325 0.0001 242 -0.56760 0.0001 242 0.68309 0.0001 242 0.50025 0.0001 242 -0.34814 0.0001 242 0.39691 0.0001 242 -O.45990 0.0001 242 0.49464 0.0001 242 0.42744 0.0001 242 0.63391 0.0001 242 0.37851 0.0001 242 0.42188 0.0001 242 AXOUT 1.OOOOO 0.0000 242 O.10966 0.0887 242 -0.54919 0.0001 242 0.75716 0.0001 242 0.21742 0.0007 242 -0.22421 0.0004 242 0.29383 0.0001 242 -O.35503 0.0001 242 0.35860 0.0001 242 0.34038 0.0001 242 O.66383 0.0001 242 0.34874 0.0001 242 0.41675 0.0001 242 SAS SEX=1 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO;RHO =0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREQ IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGD VERBALAG AXIN 0.10966 0.0887 242 1.00000 O.OOOO 242 -0.18886 0.0032 242 0.57479 0.0001 242 0.43222 0.0001 242 -0.24791 0.0001 242 0. 14035 0.0290 242 -0.25782 0.0001 242 0.25394 6.0001 242 0.23991 0.0002 242 O.18592 0.0037 242 0.19624 0.0022 242 0.08812 0.1718 242 AXCON -O.54919 0.0001 242 -O.18886 0.0032 242 1.00000 O.OOOO 242 -O.83201 0.0001 242 -0.28844 0.0001 242 O.28691 0.0001 242 -0.30679 0.0001 242 0.42082 0.0001 242 -O.36641 0.0001 242 -0.30676 0.0001 242 -O.53365 0.0001 242 -0.29385 0.0001 242 -0.35281 0.0001 242 AXEX 0.75716 0.0001 242 O.57479 0.0001 242 -0.83201 0.0001 242 1.OOOOO 0.0000 242 0.42775 0.0001 242 -0-35051 0.0001 242 0.34415 0.0001 242 -O.47972 0.0001 242 O.45146 0.0001 242 0.40684 0.0001 242 O.63868 0.0001 242 0.38493 0.0001 242 0.39784 0.0001 242 BDI 0.21742 0.0007 242 0.43222 0.0001 242 -0.28844 0.0001 242 0.42775 0.0001 242 1 OOOOO 0.0000 242 -0.14329 0.0258 242 0.23487 0.0002 242 -0.31176 0.0001 242 0.21865 0.0006 242 0.17347 0.0068 242 0.33838 0.0001 242 0.15484 0.0159 242 0.08875 0-1687 242 DENIAL -0.22421 0.0004 242 -O.24791 0.0001 242 0.28691 0.0001 242 -O.35051 0.0001 242 -0.14329 0.0258 242 1 OOOOO O.OOOO 242 -0.13287 0.0389 242 0.38501 0.0001 242 -0.48766 0.0001 242 -0.42331 0.0001 242 -0.32617 0.0001 242 -0.20847 0.0011 242 -O.34926 0.0001 242 INFREQ 0.29383 0.0001 242 O.14035 0.0290 242 -0.30679 0.0001 242 0.34415 0.0001 242 0.23487 0.0002 242 -0.13287 0.0389 242 1.00000 O.OOOO 242 -0.27811 0.0001 242 0.47756 0.0001 242 0.36267 0.0001 242 0.39759 0.0001 242 0.37745 0.0001 242 0.54631 0.0001 242 IMPRESS -0.35503 0.0001 242 -0.25782 0.0001 242 0.42082 0.0001 242 -0.47972 0.0001 242 -0.31176 0.0001 242 0.38501 0.0001 242 -0.27811 0.0001 242 1.00000 O.OOOO 242 -0.45346 0.0001 242 -0.34550 0.0001 242 -O.51733 0.0001 242 -O.21337 0.0008 242 -0.40707 0.0001 242 AGGRESS 0.35860 0.0001 242 0.25394 0.0001 242 -O.36641 0.0001 242 0.45146 0.0001 242 0.21865 0.0006 242 -0.48766 0.0001 242 0.47756 0.0001 242 -0.45346 0.0001 242 1 OOOOO O.OOOO 242 0.86926 0.0001 242 0.55985 0.0001 242 0.62369 0.0001 242 0.69190 0.0001 242 HOSTILST 0.34038 0.0001 242 0.23991 0.0002 242 -0.30676 0.0001 242 0.40684 0.0001 242 0.17347 0.0068 242 -0.42331 0.0001 242 0.36267 0.0001 242 -0.34550 0.0001 242 0.86926 0.0001 242 1.00000 0.0000 242 O.45081 0.0001 242 O.74945 0.0001 242 O.63857 0.0001 242 ANGEREX 0.66383 0.0001 242 0. 18592 0.0037 242 -0.53365 0.0001 242 0.63868 0.0001 242 0.33838 0.0001 242 -0.32617 0.0001 242 0.39759 0.0001 242 -O.51733 0.0001 242 0.55985 0.0001 242 0.45081 0.0001 242 1.OOOOO 0.0000 242 0.35708 0.0001 242 0.57780 0.0001 242 DISREGD 0.34874 0.0001 242 0.19624 0.0022 242 -0.29385 0.0001 242 0.38493 0.0001 242 0.15484 0.0159 242 -0.20847 0.0011 242 0.37745 0.0001 242 -0.21337 0.0008 242 0.62369 0.0001 242 O.74945 0.0001 242 O.35708 0.0001 242 1.OOOOO O.OOOO 242 0.42041 0.0001 242 VERBALAG 0.41675 0.0001 242 O.08812 O.1718 242 -0.35281 0.0001 242 0.39784 0.0001 242 0.08875 O.1687 242 -O.34926 0.0001 242 O.54631 0.0001 242 -0.40707 0.0001 242 0.69190 0.0001 242 0.63857 0.0001 242 O.57780 0.0001 242 0.42041 0.0001 242 1 OOOOO O.OOOO 242 PHYSAGG 0.33464 0.0001 242 0. 13216 0.0399 242 -0.24252 0.0001 242 O.32482 0.0001 242 0.23301 0.0003 242 -O.18916 0.0031 242 O.36183 0.0001 242 -0.13189 0.0404 242 0.49169 0.0001 242 O.47949 0.0001 242 0.49823 0.0001 242 0.46552 0.0001 242 0.38680 0.0001 242 SAS SEX=1 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO.RHO^O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREQ IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGD VERBALAG PASSIVAG 0.36326 0.47534 -O.36804 0.54959 O.58609 -0.33062 0.32940 -0.47310 0.49625 O.44190 O.50959 0.33236 0.35623 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 ASSERT 0.15403 -0.27497 -0.01954 -0.04262 -O.15946 -O.03822 0.12124 -0.01862 0.06326 0.17995 0.16123 0.15540 0.29198 0.0165 0.0001 0.7623 0.5093 0.0130 0.5540 0.0597 0.7732 0.3271 0.0050 0.0120 0.0155 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 SELFCONF -0.06812 -0.46466 0.12935 -0.29589 -0.45804 O.16282 -0.14127 0.27703 -O.17278 0.2912 0.0001 0.0444 0.0001 0.0001 0.0112 0.0280 0.0001 0.0071 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 INITASS 0.01456 -O.27444 O.12313 -O.17555 -O.20538 0.07292 -0.00908 O.11531 -0.10709 0.8217 0.0001 0.0558 0.0062 0.0013 0.2585 0.8882 0.0734 0.0965 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 DEFENASS 0.12387 0.41926 -0.03732 -0.10841 -0.30414 0.01561 -0.00302 0.04498 O.01657 0.0543 0.0001 0.5634 0.0924 0.0001 0.8091 0.9628 0.4861 0.7976 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 -0.01453 -O.17323 0.03505 0.02473 0.8221 0.0069 0.5875 0.7019 242 2*42 242 242 -0.01282 0.01514 0.00626 0.07783 0.8427 0.8147 0.9228 0.2277 242 242 242 242 0.10507 0.03952 0.14158 0.18254 0.1030 0.5406 0.0276 0.0044 242 242 242 242 FRANK PRAISE 0.24990 -0.44710 O.06091 -0.05448 -0.23538 0.06296 O.10986 -O.01598 0.01846 0.05197 O.17390 O.05215 O.29599 0.0001 0.0001 0.3454 0.3988 0.0002 0.3294 0.0881 0.8047 0.7751 0.4209 0.0067 0.4193 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 -0.08049 -0.34548 0.2121 0.0001 242 242 O.13824 -O.25445 -O.34305 0.08611 -0.19940 0.0316 0.0001 0.0001 0.1819 0.0018 242 242 242 242 242 O.30846 -0.22592 -0.07682 0.0001 0.0004 O 2338 242 242 242 -O.16199 -0.07157 -0.01509 0.0116 0.267S 0.8153 242 242 242 H» \o x> REQESTHE 0.06840 -O.38534 0.01285 -0.14337 -0.26485 0.10027 -0.12755 0.10235 0.00508 0.09778 0.2892 0.0001 0.8423 0.0257 0.0001 0.1198 0.0475 O.1123 0.9374 O.1293 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 REFUSDEM -0.02064 -O.35241 -0.01528 -0.15261 -0.28090 0.03340 -O.02453 0.02147 -O.03614 -0.03491 0.7494 0.0001 0.8131 0.0175 0.0001 0.6052 0.7041 0.7397 0.5758 0.5889 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 CONFLAVD -0.35983 0.37502 0.19160 -0.09091 0.15389 0.03328 -0.15231 O.13178 -O.13067 -O.15021 0.0001 0.0001 0.0028 0.1586 0.0166 0.6065 0.0177 0.0405 0.0423 0.0194 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 0.01405 0.10417 O.11213 0.8279 O.1060 0.0817 242 242 242 -0.02156 -0.00688 0.08860 0.7386 0.9152 0.1695 242 242 242 -O.37132 -0.13757 -0.42760 0.0001 0.0324 0.0001 242 242 242 DEPENDCY 0.13058 O.34875 -0.07832 O.24625 0.36099 -0.16649 0.07023 -0.12917 O.10120 0.08659 0.12694 O.05325 -0.00411 0.0424 0.0001 0.2248 0.0001 0.0001 0.0095 0.2765 0.0447 0.1164 0.1794 0.0485 0.4096 0.9492 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 SHY 0.06214 0.32422 -0.16748 0.25259 0.34454 -0.07674 0.08878 0.13790 0.13892 0.02228 0.08400 0.04438 -O.04511 0.3357 0.0001 0.0090 0.0001 0.0001 0.2343 0.1686 0.0320 0.0307 0.7302 0.1928 0.4920 0.4848 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 ASSAULT O.40983 0.08519 -O.25752 O.34439 O.17062 -0.14140 O.28779 -O.11273 O.42288 0.45507 0.40440 0.38380 0-3G693 0.0001 O.1866 0.0001 0.0001 0.0078 0.0279 0.0001 0.0801 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 SAS SEX=1 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UmER HO;RHO INDIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST SEXROLE AXOUT 0.36037 0.0001 242 0.40773 0.0001 242 0.32146 0.0001 242 0.31104 0.0001 242 0.32142 0.0001 242 0.58087 0.0001 242 0.21851 0.0006 242 0.59176 0.0001 242 0.11457 0.0946 214 AXIN AXCON 0.22186 -0.35952 0.0005 0.0001 242 242 0.42112 -0.48572 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 0.08868 -0.22334 0.1691 0.0005 242 242 0.39745 -0.34403 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 0.41699 -0.21870 0.0001 0.0006 242 242 -0.08236 -0.37036 0.2017 0.0001 242 242 O.33662 -0.08544 0.0001 0.1853 242 242 O.37864 -O.47426 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 AXEX O.43485 0.0001 242 0.60601 0.0001 242 0.29058 0.0001 242 0.48141 0.0001 242 0.42949 0.0001 242 0.40347 0.0001 242 0.28175 0.0001 242 0.66024 0.0001 242 =0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS BDI DENIAL INFREQ IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGO VERBALAG 0.19049 -0.38728 0.19124 -0.31215 0.0029 0.0001 0.0028 0.0001 242 242 0.49078 -0.44436 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 0.20080 -0.22731 0.0017 0.0004 242 242 0.0001 242 0.0001 242 0.45691 -0.30876 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 0.15640 -O.22382 0.0149 0.0005 242 242 0.42905 -O.16695 0.0001 0.0093 242 242 0.52547 -0.43575 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 -0.18505 0.0066 214 O.11040 O.1073 214 PHYSAGG PASSIVAG 214 ASSERT SELFCONF 0.08802 -O.18808 0.09097 0.1996 0.0058 0.1849 214 214 INITASS DEFENASS ID GRADE -0.00971 0.8805 242 -0.01317 0.8391 240 -0.02091 0.7463 242 0.04151 0.5204 242 -O.05632 O.06576 0.3850 0.3103 240 240 0.00504 0.9378 242 O.12260 0.0579 240 0.01851 0.7745 242 0.01190 0.3545 240 0.5096 242 0.09858 O.1278 240 242 242 0.21355 -0.46963 0.0008 O.OOOI 242 242 0.29498 -0.33224 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 0.18980 -0.35380 0.0030 0.0001 242 242 O.23582 -0.37470 0.0002 0.0001 242 242 O.32016 -0.27033 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 0. 13107 -0.20525 0.0416 0.0013 242 242 0.36606 -0.48082 0.0001 O.OOOI 242 242 -0.00075 0.09311 0.9913 0.1747 214 214 FRANK PRAISE -O.00575 0.04691 0.9291 0.4676 242 242 0.09S86 0.08040 0.1267 0.2146 240 240 0.33062 0.31709 0.49370 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 O.34837 0.30804 O.35771 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 O.16535 0.28861 0.0100 0.0001 242 242 0.44044 0.40966 0.49642 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 0.41011 0.41150 O.26648 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 0.32479 0.33502 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 0.35007 O.29192 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 0.27340 O.21769 0.0001 0.0006 242 242 242 O.44451 O.38252 O.36487 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 O.33582 0.26990 0.0001 O.OOOi 242 242 242 0.38888 0.36464 0.59607 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOI 242 242 242 0.11661 0.05507 0.23315 0.0702 0.3937 0.0003 242 0.33695 0.50671 O.OOOI O.OOOI 242 242 0.02049 0.05030 0.7512 0.4360 242 242 242 0.57236 0.52969 0.65370 O.OOOI O.OOOI O.OOOI 242 242 0.43178 0.46865 O.OOOI O.OOOI 242 242 0.02106 0.05254 0.04818 0.7594 0.4445 0.4833 214 0.09916 0.11252 0.1483 O.1007 214 214 214 REOESTHE REFUSOEM GONFLAVD DEPENOCY 214 SHY -0.03968 0.06076 -O.06683 0.5390 0.3466 0.3005 242 242 242 0.08714 0.12590 -0.06483 0.1785 0.0514 0.3173 240 240 240 -0.03455 -0.04913 0.5927 0.4468 242 242 -0.12006 0.04774 0.0633 0.4617 240 240 vo m RACE 0.08812 0.13596 -O.21778 -0.07972 -0.26270 -0.13449 -0.04621 -0.08558 -0.02666 0.20183 0.09954 0.16484 0.20063 0.1718 0.0345 0.0006 0.2166 O.OOOI 0.0365 0.4743 0.1846 0.6799 0.0016 0.1225 0.0102 0.0017 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 SAS SEX=1 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROS > |R| UNDER HO:RH0=O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS PHVSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS OEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REOESTHE REFUSDEM CONFLAVD OEPENOCY SHY AGE 0.01789 0.7819 242 O.05711 0.3764 242 0.03222 0.6179 242 0.04765 0.4606 242 -0.03595 0.5779 242 0.01243 0.8474 242 0.02652 0.6815 242 0.02327 0.7188 242 0.04287 0.5069 242 O.03632 0.5739 242 -O.02336 0.7177 242 0.03549 0.5827 242 0.03613 0.5759 242 MARITAL 0.00476 0.9412 242 -0.05653 0.3813 242 -0.08862 O.1694 242 -0.01323 0.8378 242 -0.11705 0.0691 242 -O.01717 0.7905 242 -0.00214 0.9735 242 -0.02755 0.6698 242 -0.02732 0.6724 242 O.02516 0.6970 242 O.00174 0.9785 242 -0.02841 0.6601 242 0.09791 O.1288 242 OAOEO -0.18339 0.0042 242 -0.04463 0.4895 242 0.05970 0.3S51 242 0.00435 0.9463 242 0.08121 0.2081 242 -0.01418 0.8263 242 0.05964 0.3556 242 0.06252 0.3328 242 -0.06428 0.3193 242 0.00921 0.8866 242 -0.05686 0.3785 242 0.09861 O.1261 242 -0.13239 0.0396 242 MOMED -0.04767 0.4604 242 -0.01668 0.7963 242 0.06388 0.3224 242 0.05094 0.4302 242 0.05310 0.4108 242 0. 12117 0.0598 242 0.09487 O.1411 242 0.10011 0.1204 242 0.01039 0.8722 242 0.06645 0.3033 242 -0.08555 0.1847 242 0.01966 0.7609 242 -0-09674 0.1334 242 HOME -0.04989 0.4437 238 0.01114 0.8643 238 -0.14084 0.0298 238 -0.10758 0.0978 238 -0.11748 0.0704 238 -0.15467 0.0169 238 -0.08044 0.2163 238 -O.06396 0.3258 238 -O.09293 0.1529 238 -0.06460 0.3210 238 O. 12975 0.0455 238 O.13108 0.0434 238 0.06826 0.2943 238 PLACE 0.05572 0.3892 241 0.04885 0.4503 241 0.00511 0.9372 241 -0.04683 0.4693 241 0.06350 0.3263 241 -0.03317 0.6084 241 -0.04101 0.5264 241 -0.08461 O.1905 241 -0.05001 0.4397 241 0.01971 0.7608 241 -O.00111 0.9863 241 -0.01446 0.8232 241 -O.08706 0.1780 241 RSA -0.15410 0.0164 242 -0.08688 O.1780 242 -0.04315 0.5041 242 0.04127 0.5229 242 0.03754 0.5611 242 -O.09031 0.1614 242 0.01976 0.7597 242 O.13737 0.0327 242 -0.04136 0.5220 242 -O.10514 0.1027 242 0.06402 0.3213 242 O. 17877 0.0053 242 -O.18794 0.0033 242 RSB 0.17730 0.0057 242 -0.16796 0.0088 242 0.67554 0.0001 242 0.41286 0.0001 242 0.67193 0.0001 242 O.53201 0.0001 242 O.49733 0.0001 242 0.29040 0.0001 242 0.28205 0.0001 242 0.34869 0.0001 242 -0.51350 0.0001 242 -0.44663 0.0001 242 -O.45369 0.0001 242 STASS 0.27240 0.0001 242 0.30156 0.0001 242 -0.06489 0.3148 242 -O.24021 0.0002 242 -O.13468 0.0363 242 -O.24657 0.0001 242 -0.06275 0.3310 242 -O.18431 0.0040 242 -O.14382 0.0253 242 -O.17887 0.0053 242 0.02847 0.6594 242 O.25315 0.0001 242 O. 13261 0.0393 242 STAST O.35099 0.0001 242 O.S99S1 0.0001 242 -0.02633 0.6837 242 -O.36436 0.0001 242 -O.19344 0.0025 242 -O.12799 0.0467 242 -0.01777 0.7833 242 -0.33901 0.0001 242 -O.15858 0.0135 242 -0.23480 0.0002 242 -O.10052 0. 1189 242 0.31795 0.0001 242 0.22431 0.0004 242 AXOUT 0.33464 0.0001 242 0.36326 0.0001 242 O.15403 0.0165 242 -0.06812 0.2912 242 0.01456 0.8217 242 0.12387 0.0543 242 0.24990 0.0001 242 -O.08049 0.2121 242 0.06840 0.2892 242 -0.02064 0.7494 242 -O.35983 0.0001 242 0.13058 0.0424 242 0.06214 0.3357 242 AXIN O.13216 0.0399 242 0.47534 0.0001 242 -O.27497 0.0001 242 -O.46466 0.0001 242 -O.27444 0.0001 242 -O.41926 0.0001 242 -0.44710 0.0001 242 -0.34548 0.0001 242 -0.38534 0.0001 242 -0.35241 0.0001 242 0.37502 0.0001 242 0.34875 0.0001 242 O.32422 0.0001 242 AXCQN -O.24252 -G.36804 -0.01954 0.12935 0.12313 -0.03732 -0.06091 0.13824 0.01285 -0.01528 0.19160 0.07832 -0.16748 0.0001 0.0001 0.7623 0.0444 0.0558 0.5634 0.3454 0.0316 0.8423 0.8131 0.0028 0.2248 0.0090 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB PHYSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS OEFENASS AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREO 0.32482 0.0001 242 0.23301 0.0003 242 -O.18916 0.0031 242 0.36183 0.0001 242 0.0001 242 0.0001 242 0.0001 242 0.0001 242 0.5093 242 0.0130 242 0.5540 242 0.0597 242 0.0001 242 0.0001 242 0.0112 242 0.0280 242 IMPRESS -0.13189 0.0404 242 -0.47310 0.0001 242 -0.01862 0.7732 242 0.27703 0.0001 242 AGGRESS 0.49169 0.0001 242 0.49625 0.0001 242 0.06326 0.3271 242 -0.17278 0.0071 242 HOSTILST 0.47949 0.0001 242 0.44190 0.0001 242 0. 17995 0.0050 242 -0.01453 0.8221 242 ANGEREX 0.49823 0.0001 242 0.50959 0.0001 242 0.16123 0.0120 242 -0.17323 0.0069 242 DISREGD 0.46552 0.0001 242 O. 33236 0.0001 242 0. 15540 0.0155 242 0.0350S 0.5875 242 VERBALAG 0.38680 0.0001 242 0.35623 0.0001 242 0.29198 0.0001 242 0.02473 0.7019 242 PHYSAGG 1.OOOOO 0.0000 242 0.36140 0.0001 242 0.15397 0.0165 242 -0.10731 0.0958 242 PASSIVAG 0.36140 0.0001 242 1.OOOOO 0.0000 242 -O.17027 0.0079 242 -0.47154 0.0001 242 ASSERT 0.15397 0.0165 242 -0.17027 0.0079 242 1.00000 OOOOO 242 0.55601 0.0001 242 -O.17555 -0.10841 0.0062 0.0924 242 242 -0.20538 -O.30414 0.0013 0.0001 242 242 0.07292 0.01561 0.2585 0.8091 242 242 -0.00908 -0.00302 0.8882 0.9628 242 242 0.11531 0.04498 0.0734 0.4861 242 242 -0.10709 0.01657 0.0965 0.7976 242 242 -0.01282 0.10507 0.8427 0.1030 242 242 0.01514 0.03952 0.8147 0.5406 242 242 0.00626 O. 14158 0.9228 0.0276 242 242 0.07783 O.18254 0.2277 0.0044 242 242 O.04841 0.01865 0.4535 0.7729 242 242 -0.25066 -0.34810 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 0.85961 0.63399 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 SEX=1 > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS FRANK PRAISE REQESTHE REFUSDEM CONFLAVD DEPEWCY -0.05448 -0.25445 -0.14337 -0.15261 0.09091 0.24625 0.3988 0.0001 0.0257 0.0175 O.1586 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 -O.23538 -0.34305 -0.26485 -0.28090 0.15389 0.36099 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0166 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 0.06296 0.08611 O.10027 0.03340 0.03328 -0.16649 0.3294 O.1819 O.1198 0.6052 0.6065 0.0095 242 242 242 242 242 242 0.10986 -0.19940 -0.12755 -0.02453 -O.15231 0.0881 242 0.0018 242 0.0475 242 0.7041 242 0.0177 242 0.07023 0.2765 242 SHY 0.25259 0.0001 242 0.34454 0.0001 242 -0.07674 0.2343 242 0.08878 O.1686 242 -0.01598 0.30846 0.10235 -O.02147 O.13178 -O.12917 -0.13790 0.8047 0.0001 0.1123 0.7397 0.0405 0.0447 0.0320 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 O.01846 -0.22592 0.00508 -0.03614 -0.13067 0.10120 0.7751 242 0.0004 242 0.9374 242 0.5758 242 0.0423 242 0.05197 -0.07682 0.09778 -0.03491 -0.15021 0.4209 0.2338 0.1293 0.5889 0.0194 242 242 242 242 242 0.1164 242 0.08659 0.1794 242 O.17390 -0.16199 0.01405 -0.02156 -O.37132 0.12694 0.0067 242 0.0116 242 0.8279 242 0.7386 242 0.0001 242 0.0485 242 0.05215 -0.07157 O.10417 -O.00688 -0.13757 0.05325 0.4193 242 0.2675 242 0.1060 242 0.9152 242 0.0324 242 0.4096 242 O.13892 0.0307 242 O.02228 0.7302 242 0.08400 O.1928 242 O.04438 0.4920 242 0.29599 -0.01509 0.11213 0.08860 -0.42760 -0.00411 -0.04511 0.0001 0.8153 0.0817 O.1695 0.0001 0.9492 0.4848 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 0.04405 -0.10385 -0.04383 -0.07548 -0.18153 0.03239 O.05116 0.4952 0.1071 0.4973 0.2421 0.0046 0.6161 0.4282 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 -0.23579 -0.38849 -0.24551 -0.35988 0.16677 0.46110 O.31846 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0093 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 0.53003 0.45532 0.36229 0.44044 -0.58821 -0.37153 -O.56450 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 KO SAS SEX=1 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROS > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS PHVSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS OEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REQESTHE REFUSOEM CONFLAVD OEPENOCY SHY SELFCONF -0.10731 0.0958 242 -0.47154 0.0001 242 0.55601 0.0001 242 1 OOOOO 0.0000 242 0.48240 0.0001 242 0.66779 0.0001 242 0.51382 0.0001 242 0.80077 0.0001 242 0.76208 0.0001 242 O.58738 0.0001 242 -O.46236 0.0001 242 -O.47221 O.OOOt 242 -0.46983 0.0001 242 INITASS 0.04841 0.4535 242 -0.25066 0.0001 242 0.85961 0.0001 242 0.48240 0.0001 242 1.OOOOO 0.0000 242 0.52143 0.0001 242 O.44578 0.0001 242 0.41329 0.0001 242 0.26282 0.0001 242 0.41477 0.0001 242 -O.47006 0.0001 242 -0.36861 0.0001 242 -0.60931 0.0001 242 OEFENASS 0.0186S 0.7729 242 -0.34810 0.0001 242 0.63399 0.0001 242 O.66779 0.0001 242 0.52143 0.0001 242 1.OOOOO 0.0000 242 0.63124 0.0001 242 0.50124 0.0001 242 0.54840 0.0001 242 0.62709 0.0001 242 -O.63255 0.0001 242 -0.48957 0.0001 242 -0.40704 0.0001 242 FRANK 0.04405 0.4952 242 -O.23579 0.0002 242 0.53003 0.0001 242 0.51382 0.0001 242 O.44578 0.0001 242 0.63124 0.0001 242 1.00000 OOOOO 242 0.36865 0.0001 242 0.43376 0.0001 242 0.44289 0.0001 242 -0.77244 0.0001 242 -0.40788 0.0001 242 -0.40284 0.0001 242 PRAISE -O.10385 0.1071 242 -O.38849 0.0001 242 0.45532 0.0001 242 0.80077 0.0001 242 O.41329 0.0001 242 0.50124 0.0001 242 0.36865 0.0001 242 1.00000 OOOOO 242 0.53307 0.0001 242 0.38416 0.0001 242 -0.32478 0.0001 242 -0.23142 0.0003 242 -0.40729 0.0001 242 REQESTHE -0.04383 0.4973 242 -0.24551 0.0001 242 0.36229 0.0001 242 0.76208 0.0001 242 0.26282 0.0001 242 0.54840 0.0001 242 0.43376 0.0001 242 0.53307 0.0001 242 1.00000 OOOOO 242 0.47148 0.0001 242 -O.39450 0.0001 242 -O.33202 0.0001 242 -O.26959 0.0001 242 REFUSOEM -0.07548 0.2421 242 -O.35988 0.0001 242 0.44044 0.0001 242 0.58738 0.0001 242 0.41477 0.0001 242 0.62709 0.0001 242 0.44289 0.0001 242 0.38416 0.0001 242 0.47148 0.0001 242 1.00000 OOOOO 242 -0.47941 0.0001 242 -O.51245 0.0001 242 -O.34613 0.0001 242 CONFLAVD -0.18153 0.0046 242 0.16677 0.0093 242 -0.58821 0.0001 242 -0.46236 0.0001 242 -0.47006 0.0001 242 -0.63255 0.0001 242 -0.77244 0.0001 242 -0.32478 0.0001 242 -0.39450 0.0001 242 -O.47941 0.0001 242 1.OOOOO 0.0000 242 0.44910 0.0001 242 O.31844 0.0001 242 OEPENOCY 0.03239 0.6161 242 0.46110 0.0001 242 -0.37153 0.0001 242 -0.47221 0.0001 242 -0.36861 0.0001 242 -0.48957 0.0001 242 -0.40788 0.0001 242 -0.23142 0.0003 242 -0.33202 0.0001 242 -O.51245 0.0001 242 0.44910 0.0001 242 1.OOOOO 0.0000 242 O.24426 0.0001 242 SHY 0.05116 0.4282 242 0.31846 0.0001 242 -0.56450 0.0001 242 -0.46983 0.0001 242 -0.60931 0.0001 242 -0.40704 0.0001 242 -0.40284 0.0001 242 -O.40729 0.0001 242 -O.26959 0.0001 242 -O.34613 0.0001 242 O.31844 0.0001 242 O.24426 0.0001 242 1.OOOOO 0.0000 242 ASSAULT 0.54205 0.0001 242 0.27761 0.0001 242 0.10480 0.1039 242 -0.08668 0.1789 242 0.02387 0.7118 242 0.12236 0.0573 242 O.10864 0.0917 242 -O.11313 0.0790 242 0.01106 0.8641 242 -0.07916 0.2198 242 -O.25691 0.0001 242 0.03822 0.5540 242 O.07352 0.2545 242 INDIRHOS 0.30211 0.0001 242 0.29909 0.0001 242 0.00722 0.9111 242 -0.15096 0.0188 242 -0.05180 0.4225 242 -0.04980 0.4406 242 -0.02980 0.6446 242 -0.09844 0.1267 242 -0.09436 0.1433 242 -0.04646 0.4719 242 -0.04713 0.4655 242 0.27068 0.0001 242 0-00796 0.9020 242 IRRITBLE O.20175 0.0016 242 O.58254 0.0001 242 -O.11865 0.0654 242 -O.33756 0.0001 242 -O.21427 0.0008 242 -O.19187 0.0027 242 -O.14081 0.0285 242 -O.25416 0.0001 242 -O.10901 0.0906 242 -0.17684 0.0058 242 O.05135 0.4265 242 0.41545 0.0001 242 O.31632 0.0001 242 SAS SEX=1 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS PHYSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS DEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REQESTHE REFUSDEM CONFL/ NEGATIVE 0.28992 0.0001 0.39877 0.12981 -0.00950 0.03714 0.15128 0.09010 -0.08073 0.06567 O.03309 -O.09129 0.0001 0.0436 0.8831 0.5653 0.0185 0.1623 0.2108 O.3089 0.6084 0.1569 242 0.0049 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 RESENT O.22857 0.0003 242 O.67246 0.0001 242 -0.13932 0.0303 242 -O.40721 0.0001 242 -0.21433 0.0008 242 -0.28773 0.0001 242 -O.23555 0.0002 242 -O.31608 0.0001 242 -0.20957 0.0010 242 -0.30588 0.0001 242 SUSPICIN 0.37593 0.0001 242 0.69974 0.0001 242 -0.14379 0.0253 242 -0.42476 0.0001 242 -0.20619 0.0013 242 -0.30651 0.0001 242 -0.20043 0.0017 242 -0.35976 0.0001 242 -0.19834 0.0019 242 -0.33339 0.0001 242 VERBLHOS 0.38325 0.0001 242 0.26438 0.0001 242 0.36367 0.0001 242 0.10180 O.1142 242 0.24567 0.0001 242 0.33492 0.0001 242 O.32027 0.0001 242 0.06705 0.2989 242 O. 17086 0.0077 242 0.16095 0.0122 242 GUILT O.13185 0.0404 242 0.43618 0.0001 242 -O.19416 0.0024 242 -0.44386 0.0001 242 -O.14573 0.0234 242 -0.40328 0.0001 242 -O.29647 0.0001 242 -0.30264 0.0001 242 -O.29999 0.0001 242 -O.33392 0.0001 242 TOTLHOST 0.48597 0.0001 242 0.72283 0.0001 242 0.00076 0.9906 242 -0.35924 0.0001 242 -0.10536 0.1020 242 -0.13412 0.0371 242 -0.07728 0.2310 242 -0.29186 0.0001 242 -0.13523 0.0355 242 -0.22115 0.0005 242 SEXROLE O.13002 0.0576 214 -0.08136 0.2359 214 O.36405 0.0001 214 0.25681 0.0001 214 O.36507 0.0001 214 0.32662 0.0001 214 O.32135 0.0001 214 0.17424 0.0107 214 0.17855 0.0088 214 0.22535 0.0009 214 ASSAULT INDIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST SEXROLE ID -0.00202 0.9751 242 -0.06965 0.2805 242 -0.02145 0.7399 242 -0.03965 0.5393 242 -0.07826 0.2251 242 -0.01983 0.7590 242 0.01001 0.8768 242 -O.04986 0.4400 242 -O.04956 0.4428 242 0.06089 0.3755 214 GRADE -O.07521 0.2457 240 -O.10060 0.1201 240 -0.06668 0.3036 240 0.01603 0.8049 240 -0.02998 0.6440 240 -0.10242 O.1135 240 0.03834 0.5544 240 -0.16440 0.0107 240 -0.09795 0.1302 240 0.04778 0.4889 212 RACE 0.08914 0.1669 242 -0.02392 0.7112 242 -O.01009 0.8759 242 0.06509 0.3132 242 0.00469 0.9421 242 0.10268 O. 1111 242 0.01412 0.8270 242 0.06778 0.2936 242 0.05848 0.3651 242 -0.12755 0.0625 214 AGE -0.10195 0.1137 242 -0.00419 0.9483 242 0.08530 0.I860 242 O.13103 0.0417 242 0.06128 0.3425 242 -0.05637 0.3826 242 -0.00919 0.8870 242 -0.10331 0.1089 242 -0.00978 0.8797 242 -0.00714 0.9173 214 MARITAL 0.02861 0.6578 242 0.04177 0.5179 242 -0.03234 0.6167 242 0.00107 0.9868 242 -O.10292 O.1103 242 -O.11765 0.0677 • 242 0.07217 0.2634 242 0.01034 0.8729 242 -0.02008 0.7559 242 -0.04085 0.5523 214 0.0066 242 0.0001 242 0.0001 242 0.4445 242 0.0001 214 OEPENDCY SHY O.13010 0.06562 0.0432 0.3094 242 242 0.40215 0.25402 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 O.38302 0.25646 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 -0.04652 -O.10920 0.4713 0.0901 242 242 0.49267 0.22981 0.0001 0.0003 242 242 0.41571 0.22096 0.0001 0.0005 242 242 -0.18885 -0.25855 0.0056 0.0001 214 214 vo VO SAS SEX=1 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0 =0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS ASSAULT IWIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST SEXROLE OADED -0.06772 0.10610 -O.00037 -0.04579 -0.12986 -0.09001 -0.06309 -0.00480 -O.06144 -0.00833 0.2940 0.0996 0.99S4 0.4783 0.0436 0.1628 0.3284 0.9407 0.3412 0.9036 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214 MOWED 0.02171 0.02850 -0.00295 -0.01811 -0.08170 -0.01030 -0.00289 -0.05001 -0.02273 O.05413 0.7369 0.6591 0.9636 0.7793 0.2053 0.8733 0.9644 0.4386 0.7249 0.4308 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214 HOME -0.02060 -0.07772 -0.03821 -0.12070 -0.05437 -0.02741 -0.12375 0.12357 -0.06207 -0.04802 0.7518 0.2323 0.5575 0.0630 0.4038 0.6739 0.0566 0.0570 0.3404 0.4889 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 238 210 PLACE -0.08574 0.00998 0.01248 -0.05055 0.02870 -0.03347 0.03553 O.08914 0.00749 -0.03256 O.1846 0.8775 0.8471 0.4347 0.6576 0.6052 0.5831 0.1678 0.9079 0.6365 241 241 241 241 241 241 241 241 241 213 RSA -0.08661 0.00131 -0.17354 -0.19446 -0.09328 -0.05684 -0.11967 O.09012 -0.12019 0.04825 O.1793 0.9839 0.0068 0.0024 O.1480 0.3787 0.0631 O.1623 0.0619 0.4826 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214 RSB O.17088 -0.01900 -O.14033 0.08085 -O.12401 -0.06827 0.36368 -O.17826 0.02117 0.51411 0.0077 0.7687 0.0291 0.2101 0.0S40 0.2902 0.0001 0.0054 0.7431 0.0001 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214 STASS 0.16361 0.24386 0.32411 0.11733 0.32402 0.26211 0.10773 0.20715 0.35190 -0.15773 0.0108 0.0001 0.0001 0.0684 0.0001 0.0001 0.0945 0.0012 0.0001 0.0210 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214 STAST O.42009 0.35781 O.59666 O.33432 O.52981 0.45974 0.43385 0.32613 0.69693 -0.06613 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.3357 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214 AXOUT 0.40983 0.36037 O.40773 O.32146 0.31104 0.32142 0.58087 O.21851 0.59176 0.11457 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0006 0.0001 0.0946 242 242 242 242 242 242 , 242 242 242 214 AXIN O.08519 0.22186 0.42112 0.08868 0.39745 0.41699 -0.08236 0.33562 0.37864 -0.18505 0.1866 0.0005 0.0001 0.1691 0.0001 0.0001 0.2017 0.0001 0.0001 0.0066 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214 AXCON -0.25752 -0.35952 -0.48572 -0.22334 -0.34403 -0.21870 -0.37036 -0.08544 -O.47426 0.11040 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0005 0.0001 0.0006 0.0001 0.18S3 0.0001 0.1073 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214 AXEX 0.34439 0.43485 0.60601 0.29058 0.48141 0.42949 0.40347 O.28175 0.66024 -0.0B802 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.1996 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214 BDI 0.17062 0.19049 0.49078 0.20080 0.50195 0.45691 O. 15640 0.42905 O.52547 -O.18808 0.0078 0.0029 0.0001 0-0017 0.0001 0.0001 0.0149 0.0001 0.0001 0.0058 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 214 NJ O O SEX=1 DENIAL INFREQ PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS ASSAULT INDIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST SEXROLE -0.14140 -O.38728 -0.44436 -O.22731 -0.28760 -0.30876 -0.22382 -O.16695 -O.43575 O.09097 • 0.0279 0.0001 0.0001 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0005 0.0093 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 242 IMPRESS - AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGD VERBALAG PHVSAGG PASSIVAG 0.28779 O.19124 0.0001 0.0028 242 242 O. 11273 -O.31215 0.0801 0.0001 242 242 O.42288 0.33062 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 O.45507 0.31709 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 0.40440 0.49370 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 0.38380 0.16535 0.0001 0.0100 242 242 0.36693 0.28861 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 0.54205 0.30211 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 0.27761 0.29909 0.0001 0.0001 242 242 ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS O.10480 O.1039 242 -0.08668 O.1789 242 0.02387 0.7118 242 O.21355 0.0008 242 0.0001 242 0.44044 0.0001 242 0.40966 0.0001 242 0.49642 0.0001 242 0.32479 0.0001 242 0.33502 0.0001 242 0.20175 0.0016 242 0.58254 0.0001 242 0.00722 -0.11865 0.9111 0.0654 242 242 -0.15096 -0.33756 0.0188 0.0001 242 242 -0.05180 -O.21427 0.4225 0.0008 242 242 O.29498 0.0001 242 O.18980 0.0030 242 O.23582 0.0002 242 0.32016 0.0001 242 O.13107 0.0416 242 -O.33224 -0.35380 -O.37470 0.27033 -0.20525 -0.48082 0.0013 242 O.11661 0.0702 242 0.05507 0.3937 242 0.23315 0.0003 242 0.02049 0.7512 242 0.05030 0.4360 242 O. 13185 0.0404 242 O.43618 0-0001 242 0.0024 242 0.0001 242 0.0001 242 0.0001 242 0.0001 242 0.41011 0.0001 242 O.34837 Ô.0001 242 0.44451 0.0001 242 0.38888 0.0001 242 0.41150 0.0001 242 0.30804 0.0001 242 0.38252 0.0001 242 0.36464 0.0001 242 0.26648 0.0001 242 0.35771 0.0001 242 O.36487 0.0001 242 0.59607 0.0001 242 0.35007 0.0001 242 0.27340 0.0001 242 0.33582 0.0001 242 0.33695 0.0001 242 0.29192 0.0001 242 0.21769 0.0006 242 0.26990 0.0001 242 0.50671 0.0001 242 0.28992 0.0001 242 0.22857 0.0003 242 0.37593 0.0001 242 0.38325 0.0001 242 0.39877 0.0001 242 O.67246 0.0001 242 O.69974 0.0001 242 0.26438 0.0001 242 0. 12981 0.0436 242 -0.13932 0.0303 242 -0.14379 0.0253 242 0.36367 0.0001 242 -0.00950 0.8831 242 -O.40721 0.0001 242 -0.42476 0.0001 242 O.10180 0. 1142 242 0.03714 0.5653 242 -O.21433 0.0008 242 -0.20619 0.0013 242 O.24567 0.0001 242 0.0001 242 0.0234 242 0.0001 O.1849 242 214 O.36606 -0.00075 0.0001 0.9913 242 214 0.09311 0.0001 O.1747 242 214 0.57236 0.02106 0.0001 0.7594 242 214 0.52969 0.05254 0.0001 0.4445 242 214 0.65370 0.04818 0.0001 0.4833 242 214 0.43178 0.09916 0.0001 O.1483 242 214 O.46865 0.11252 0.0001 0.1007 242 214 0.48597 0.13002 0.0001 0.0576 242 214 O.72283 -0.08136 0.0001 0.2359 242 214 0.00076 0.36405 0.9906 0.0001 242 214 -O.35924 O.25681 0.0001 0.0001 242 214 -O.10536 0.36507 O-1020 242 0.0001 214 SEX=1 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS ASSAULT INOIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPIC DEFENASS FRAW PRAISE REQESTHE REFUSDEM CONFLAVD OEPENDCY SHY ASSAULT INOIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT 0.0573 242 0.0917 242 0.0790 242 0.8641 242 0.2198 242 0.0001 242 0.5540 242 0.2545 242 O.OOOO 242 0.29725 0.0001 242 0.4406 242 0.6446 242 O.1267 242 0.1433 242 0.4719 242 0.4655 242 0.0001 242 0.9020 242 0.0001 242 O.OOOO 242 0.24311 0.43018 0.0001 0.0001 242 0.0001 242 0.0126 242 242 0.0003 242 0.0013 242 0-0027 242 0.0285 242 0.0001 242 0.0906 242 0.0058 242 0.4265 242 0.0001 242 0.0001 242 0.0001 242 0.0001 242 O.OOOO 242 0.0001 242 0.0001 242 0.0185 242 O.1623 242 0.2108 242 0.3089 242 0.6084 242 O. 1569 242 0.0432 242 0.3094 242 0.0001 242 0.0003 242 0.0001 242 O.OOOO 242 0.0001 242 0.0001 242 0.0002 242 0.0001 242 0.0010 242 0.0001 242 0.0049 242 0.0001 242 0.0001 242 0.0126 242 0.0013 242 0.0001 242 0.0001 242 O.OOOO 242 0.0001 242 0.0017 242 0.0001 242 0.0019 242 0.0001 242 0.0066 242 0.0001 242 0.0001 242 0.0006 242 0.0002 242 0.0001 242 0.0001 242 0.0001 242 VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST SEXROLE 0.33492 0.0001 242 -0.40328 0.0001 242 -0.13412 0.0371 242 0.32662 0.0001 214 O.32027 0.0001 242 -O.29647 0.0001 242 -0.07728 0.2310 242 O.32135 0.0001 214 0.06705 0.2989 242 -0.30264 0.0001 242 -0.29186 0.0001 242 O.17424 0.0107 214 O.17086 0.0077 242 -O.29999 0.0001 242 -O.13523 0.0355 242 O. 17855 0.0088 214 O. 1609S 0.0122 242 -O.33392 0.0001 242 -0.2211S 0.0005 242 0.22535 0.0009 214 -0.49588 0.0001 242 0.27968 0.0001 242 -0.04937 0.4445 242 -0.28745 0.0001 214 -O.04652 0.4713 242 O.49267 0.0001 242 0.41571 0.0001 242 -O.18885 0.0056 214 -0.10920 0.0901 242 0.22981 0.0003 242 0.22096 0.0005 242 -0.25855 0.0001 214 0.45595 0.0001 242 0. 12433 0.0534 242 0.55933 0.0001 242 O.09742 0.1556 214 0.34026 0.0001 242 0.23089 0.0003 242 0.58170 0.0001 242 -O.02559 0.7097 214 0.32768 0.0001 242 0.39002 0.0001 242 0.75276 0.0001 242 -0.10352 0.1312 214 0.31234 0.0001 242 0.16063 0.0123 242 0.52560 0.0001 242 0.07339 0.2852 214 O. 19743 0.0020 242 O.45998 0.0001 242 O.69313 0.0001 242 -0.01940 0.7778 214 SAS SEX=1 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS ASSAULT INOIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST SEXROLE SUSPICIN 0.21955 0.0006 242 0.23491 0.0002 242 0.43266 0.0001 242 0.32102 0.0001 242 0.59747 0.0001 242 1 OOOOO 0.0000 242 0.21086 0.0010 242 0.42928 0.0001 242 0.69171 6.0001 242 O.01453 0.8326 214 VERBLHOS 0.45595 0.0001 242 0.34026 0.0001 242 0.32768 0.0001 242 0.31234 0.0001 242 0. 19743 0.0020 242 0.21086 0.0010 242 1.OOOOO 0.0000 242 O.10967 0.0887 242 O.61258 0.0001 242 0.21494 0.0016 214 GUILT 0. 12433 0.0534 242 0.23089 0.0003 242 0.39002 0.0001 242 0.16063 0.0123 242 0.45998 0.0001 242 0.42928 0.0001 242 0.10967 0.0887 242 1.OOOOO OOOOO 242 0.58613 0.0001 242 -O.08854 0.1970 214 TOTLHOST 0.55933 0.0001 242 0.58170 0.0001 242 0.75276 0.0001 242 O.52560 0.0001 242 O.69313 0.0001 242 O.69171 0.0001 242 0.61258 0.0001 242 O.58613 0.0001 242 1 OOOOO 0.0000 242 0.03359 0.6251 214 SEXROLE 0.09742 0.1556 214 -0.02559 0.7097 214 -O.10352 O.1312 214 O.07339 0.2852 214 -0.01940 0.7778 214 0.01453 0.8326 214 0.21494 0.0016 214 -0.08854 0.1970 214 0.03359 0.6251 214 1.00000 OOOOO 214 N> O W SAS SEX=2: MEN PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS ID GRADE RACE AGE MARITAL DADED MOMED HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS STAST ID 1.00000 O.OOOO 213 0.07471 0.2823 209 0.04016 0.5599 213 0.07278 0.2903 213 -0.12501 0.0686 213 -0.04009 0.5607 213 -0.08127 0.2375 213 O.09936 0.1484 213 0.06093 0.3762 213 0.05489 0.4255 213 -0.06307 0.3597 213 -0.01034 0.8807 213 0.05565 0.4191 213 GRADE 0.07471 0.2823 209 1.00000 0.0000 209 O.09593 0.1671 209 0.53518 0.0001 209 0.20673 0.0027 209 -O.08614 0.2149 209 -0.07317 0.2924 209 -0.00623 0.9286 209 -0.04119 0.5538 209 0.02511 0.7182 209 0.01732 0.8034 209 0.01612 0.8168 209 -O.05520 0.4272 209 RACE 0.04016 0.5599 213 0.09593 O. 1671 209 1.00000 O.OOOO 213 0.06650 0.3341 213 0.12836 0.0615 213 -0.02911 0.6727 213 -0.01538 0.8234 213 0.02623 0.7035 213 -0.09647 O.1606 213 0.07846 0.2542 213 0.04527 0.5111 213 0.12810 0.0620 213 0.08227 0.2319 213 AGE 0.07278 0.2903 213 0.53518 0.0001 209 0.06650 0.3341 213 1.00000 0.0000 213 -0.08176 0.2348 213 -0-06618 0.3364 213 -0.08137 0.2370 213 O.08483 0.2176 213 -0.03262 0.6360 213 0. 16568 0.0155 213 0.05653 0.4118 213 -0.02303 0.7383 213 -0.05415 0.4317 213 MARITAL -O.12501 0.0686 213 O.20673 0.0027 209 0.12836 0.0615 213 -O.08176 0.2348 213 1 OOOOO 0.0000 213 0.01803 0.7936 213 0.08141 0.2368 213 0.01561 0.8209 213 0.02744 0.6904 213 -O.08353 0.2247 213 0.05363 0.4362 213 0.04392 0.5238 213 O.07794 0.2574 213 DADED -0.04009 0.5607 213 -0.08614 0.2149 209 -0.02911 0.6727 213 -0.06618 0.3364 213 0.01803 0.7936 213 1.00000 0.0000 213 0.44038 0.0001 213 O.06030 0.3812 213 -0.25773 0.0001 213 -0.00755 0.9128 213 -0.01936 0.7788 213 0.07815 0-2S62 213 0.01959 0.7762 213 HOMED -0.08127 0.2375 213 -0.07317 0.2924 209 -0.01538 0.8234 213 -0.08137 0.2370 213 0.08141 0.2368 213 0.44038 0.0001 213 1 OOOOO O.OOOO 213 0.02289 0.7398 213 -0.13100 0.0563 213 0.04154 O.S465 213 0.11081 O.1068 213 O.02206 0.7489 213 0.02488 0.7181 213 HOME 0.09936 0. 1484 213 -O.00623 0.9286 209 0.02623 0.7035 213 0.08483 0.2176 213. 0.01561 0.8209 213 O.06030 0.3812 213 0.02289 0.7398 213 1.00000 O.OOOO 213 -0.00388 0.9552 213 0.05895 0.3920 213 0.00068 0.9922 213 -0.00964 0.8888 213 0.01730 0.8018 213 PLACE 0.06093 0.3762 213 -0.04119 0.5538 209 -0.09647 0.1606 213 -0.03262 0.6360 213 0.02744 0.6904 213 -0.25773 0.0001 213 -0.13100 0.0563 213 -0.00388 0.9552 213 1.00000 O.OOOO 213 0.01915 0.7811 213 -0.07466 0.2781 213 -O.09381 0.1725 213 -0.01273 0.8534 213 RSA 0.05489 0.4255 213 0.02511 0.7182 209 0.07846 0.2542 213 O. 16568 0.0155 213 -0.08353 0.2247 213 -0.00755 0.9128 213 0.04154 0.5465 213 0.05895 0.3920 213 0.01915 0.7811 213 1.00000 O.OOOO 213 0.32876 0.0001 213 -0.06914 0.3152 213 -0.04703 0.4948 213 RSB -O.06307 0.3597 213 O.01732 0.8034 209 O.04527 0.5111 213 0.05653 0.4118 213 O.05363 0.4362 213 -0.01936 0.7788 213 0.11081 O.1068 213 O.00068 0.9922 213 -0.07466 O.2781 213 0.32876 o.ooot 213 1.00000 O.OOOO 213 0.00384 0.9556 213 0.13159 0.0552 213 STASS -0.01034 0.8807 213 O.01612 0.8168 209 O. 12810 O.0620 213 -0.02303 0.7383 213 0.04392 0.5238 213 O.07815 0.2562 213 0.02206 0.7489 213 -O.00964 0.8888 213 -0.09381 O.1725 213 -O.06914 0.3152 213 0.00384 0.9556 213 1.OOOOO O.OOOO 213 0.43708 0.0001 213 SAS STAST AXOUT AXIN ID 0.05565 0.4191 213 0.05438 0.4298 213 SEX=2 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0= GRADE RACE AGE MARITAL DADED MOMED HOME -O.05520 0.08227 -0.05415 0.07794 0.01959 O.02488 0.01730 • 0.4272 0.2319 0.4317 0.2574 0.7762 0.7181 0.8018 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 -0.05759 0.05501 0.01953 O.04659 O.08706 0.04239 -0.00323 0.4075 0.4244 0.7769 0.4988 0.2057 0.5383 0.9627 209 213 213 213 213 213 213 O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS PLACE RSA -0.07769 -0.12202 0.05288 -0.10245 O.02183 -0.01604 0.03103 0.03058 0.2589 0.0784 0.4426 0.1362 0.7515 0.8160 0.6525 0.6572 213 213 213 213 209 213 213 213 AXCON 0.01658 0.8099 213 0.09253 0.1827 209 -O.03747 0.5866 213 0.08210 0.2328 213 -0.08899 0.195* 213 AXEX -0.02376 0.7302 213 -0.13252 0.0558 209 O.06821 0.3218 213 -0.08490 0.2172 213 0.07703 0.2630 213 BDI -0.00316 0.9634 213 -0.08780 0.2062 209 O.1S820 . 0.0209 213 -0.11862 0.0841 213 -0.00183 0.9789 213 DENIAL 0.00983 0.8866 213 -0.00909 0.8961 209 0.16385 0.0167 213 -O.09706 0.1581 213 -O.09878 0.1508 213 INFREO -0.10578 O.1238 213 -0.08267 0.2340 209 0.04664 0.4984 213 -0.08559 0.2135 213 -0.00983 0.8866 213 IMPRESS 0.03750 0.5862 213 O.14406 0.0374 209 0.00949 0.8905 213 0.03772 0.5841 213 -0.01204 0.8613 213 AGGRESS -0.04961 0.4713 213 -0.05739 0.4091 209 -0.02879 0.6761 213 0.00322 0.9627 213 0.12665 0.0650 213 HOSTILST -0.04433 0.5199 213 -0.05185 0.4560 209 0.00166 0.9808 213 0.02913 0.6725 213 O.10084 O.1424 213 ANGEREX 0.06417 0.3514 213 -0.09037 0.1932 209 0.08133 0.2372 213 0.02612 0.7046 213 0.04015 0.5601 213 DISREGD -O.14689 0.0321 213 0.08488 0.2217 209 0. 14253 0.0377 213 -0.00249 0.9711 213 0.14044 0.0406 213 0.3781 213 0.3795 213 0.9458 213 0.6056 213 0.8462 213 0.5650 213 0.2693 213 0.6601 213 0.8052 213 0.9489 213 0.2744 213 0.3262 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 0.376S 0.0077 213 213 213 213 0.4181 0.4226 0.2419 213 213 213 0.2009 0.0001 213 213 0.6883 213 0.1110 213 0.7451 213 0.5234 213 0.0678 0.4253 213 213 0.3056 213 0.5265 213 0.4842 213 0.4665 213 0.3019 213 0.1267 213 0.08542 0.2144 213 0.4359 213 0.8712 213 213 213 213 213 RSB STASS O.13159 O.43708 0.0552 0.0001 213 213 0.20745 0.23613 0.0023 0.0005 213 213 -0.05781 0.30144 0.4012 O.OOOl 213 213 -0.05720 -0.18937 0.4062 0.0056 213 213 0.08841 0.34384 O. 1987 O.OOOl 213 213 -O.14524 0.26283 0.0341 0.0001 213 213 -O.09358 -0.07507 0.1736 0.2754 213 213 O.06689 O.28973 0.3312 O.OOOl 213 213 -O.08871 -0.22280 0.1972 0.0011 213 213 0.18138 0.19721 0.0080 0.0039 213 -O.11338 -O.18531 0.22215 0.0989 0.0067 0.0011 213 213 213 -O.04478 -0.04878 0.27780 0.5157 0.4789 0.0001 213 213 213 -O.14817 -0.27109 O.18210 0.0306 0.0001 0.0077 213 213 213 213 O. 18085 0.0082 213 O.31457 0.0001 213 O.20800 0.0023 213 STAST 1 OOOOO 0.0000 213 0.62634 0.0001 213 0.37791 0.0001 213 -O.52780 0.0001 213 0.72194 0.0001 213 O.36562 0.0001 213 -0.35078 0.0001 213 O.39935 0.0001 213 -O.50555 0.0001 213 0.49821 0.0001 213 O.48627 0.0001 213 0.67781 O.OOOl 213 O.39769 O.OOOl 213 N9 S SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB ID GRADE RACE AGE MARITAL DADED VERBALAG -0.00788 0.9090 213 -O.04544 0.5135 209 0.02910 0.6728 213 -0.02901 0.6738 213 0.07643 0.2668 213 0.08731 0.2044 213 PHYSAGG -0.00836 0.9265 213 -0.04993 0.4728 209 0.07116 0.3012 213 0.01540 0.8232 213 0.03857 0.5756 213 O.05430 0.4305 213 PASSIVAG 0.03774 0.5838 213 -0.10300 O.1378 209 O. 19393 0.0045 213 -0.01231 0.8583 213 O.05272 0.4440 213 0.07152 0.2988 213 ASSERT -0.02674 0.6980 213 0.05161 0.4580 209 -0.03926 0.5688 213 O.10829 0. 1151 213 0.02969 0.6665 213 O.00653 0.9245 213 =2 |R| UNDER H0-.RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS MOMED HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS STAST 0.03225 0.6398 213 -O.02451 0.7221 213 -O.15221 0.0263 213 -O.22832 0.0008 213 0.27435 0.0001 213 0.21990 0.0012 213 O.50532 0-0001 213 O.00357 0.9587 213 0.05834 0.3969 213 -0.03956 0.5658 213 -O.15422 0.0244 213 O.20741 0.0023 213 0.29632 0.0001 213 0.46355 0.0001 213 0.08115 0.2383 213 0.02291 0.7396 213 0.00800 0.9076 213 -0.23642 0.0005 213 -O.06730 0.3283 213 0.36028 0.0001 213 0.51206 0.0001 213 -0.00252 0.9708 213 -0.05769 0.4022 213 -O.16152 0.0183 213 0.14075 0.0401 213 0.53245 0.0001 213 -0.04146 0.5473 213 O.08998 O.1908 213 SELFCONF 0.10502 O.1265 213 0.08497 0.2212 209 -0.10290 0.1344 213 0.05807 0.3991 213 -0.01393 0.8398 213 -0.01612 0.8151 213 -0.01529 0.8245 213 -O.04259 0.5365 213 -O.13364 0.0514 213 0.22408 0.0010 213 O.35264 0.0001 213 -0.23245 0.0006 213 -O.20921 0.0021 213 INITASS -0.06350 0.3564 213 0.06500 0.3497 209 -0.05063 0.4624 213 0.09621 0.1618 213 0.05049 0.4635 213 -0.00638 0.9262 213 -0.02146 0.7555 213 -O.06989 0.3100 213 -O.11845 0.0846 213 O.17826 0.0091 213 0.54946 0.0001 213 -O.16811 0.0140 213 -O.10494 0.1268 213 DEFENASS -O.00184 0.9787 213 0.15923 0.0213 209 -0.07694 0.2636 213 0.15407 0.0245 213 -0.07598 0.2696 213 0.02515 0.7152 213 0.04689 0.4961 213 0.02698 0.6954 213 -0.12839 0.0614 213 0.16823 0.0140 213 0.46259 0.0001 213 -0.16410 0.0165 213 0.00266 0.9692 213 FRANK -O.03951 0.5663 213 0.06378 0.3589 209 -0.07585 0.2704 213 -0.00566 0.9346 213 0.04551 0.5088 213 O.05345 0.4377 213 O.10051 0.1438 213 0.06828 0.3213 213 -0.07401 0.2822 213 0.09567 0.1641 213 0.39578 0.0001 213 -0.03672 0.5941 213 0.08373 0.2236 213 PRAISE 0.05565 ' 0.4191 213 O.10511 0.1299 209 -0.07718 0.2621 213 O.05644 0.4125 213 -0.01585 0.8181 213 0.03264 0.6357 213 -0.03772 0.5841 213 -0.02048 0.7663 213 -0.13493 0.0492 213 0.28774 0.0001 213 0.26217 0.0001 213 -O.14548 0.0338 213 -O.19899 0.0035 213 REQESTHE 0. 13719 0.0455 213 0.05915 0.3949 209 -0.17472 0.0106 213 0.08639 0.2092 213 -0.01682 0.8072 213 0.07052 0.3056 213 0.04080 0.5537 213 0.01203 0.8615 213 -0.04448 0.5185 213 0.18670 0.0063 213 0.27738 0.0001 213 -0.16200 0.0180 213 -0.07898 0.2511 213 REFUSDEM -0.05209 0.4495 213 0.09596 0.1669 209 -0.11444 0.0958 213 0.09973 0.1469 213 -0.14737 0.0316 213 -0.06802 0.3231 213 -0.05101 0.4590 213 0.05471 0.4270 213 -O.10787 0.1165 213 O.11703 0.0884 213 O.24776 0.0003 213 -O.13944 0.0420 213 -0.09178 0.1821 213 CONFLAVD 0.06514 0.3441 213 -0.03326 0.6326 209 0.06809 0.3227 213 -0.05438 0.4298 213 -0.04367 0.5262 213 -0.03329 0.6290 213 -0.04360 0.5268 213 -0.00520 0.9398 213 O.11420 0.0964 213 -0.01899 0.7829 213 -O.47427 0.0001 213 O.01222 0.8592 213 -O.20887 0.0022 213 DEPENDCY 0.09522 O.16G2 213 -0.11033 0. 1118 209 0.13443 0.0501 213 0.05769 O.4022 213 0.03311 0.6308 213 0.05472 0.4269 213 0.021S0 0.7551 213 0.13475 0.0495 213 0.06014 0.3825 213 O.13070 0.0569 213 -O.14993 0.0287 213 O.18180 0.0078 213 O.26464 0.0001 213 SAS SEX=2 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UWER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS 10 GRADE RACE AGE MARITAL DADEO MOMEO HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS STAST SHY -0.01353 0.8444 213 -0.04953 0.4764 209 0.08818 O.1999 213 -0.09440 0.1699 213 0.00992 0.8855 213 0.06527 0.3432 213 0.02216 0.7478 213 O.05530 0.4220 213 -0.02050 0.7661 213 -0.30370 0.0001 213 -0.43978 0.0001 213 0.27569 0.0001 213 0.20325 0.0029 213 ASSAULT -0.03247 0.637S 213 -0.01180 0.8654 209 0.06635 0.3352 213 0.03868 0.5745 213 0.05970 0.3860 213 -0.02057 0.7654 213 0.01816 0.7921 213 0.06704 0.3302 213 -O.02332 0.7350 213 -O.11191 0.1034 213 0.19354 0.0046 213 - O.25569 0.0002 213 0.51692 0.0001 213 INOIRHOS O.05156 0.4541 213 -O.10533 0.1291 209 0.00179 0.9793 213 0.02903 0.6736 213 -O.00450 0.9480 213 O.04007 0.5609 213 -0.11202 O.1030 213 0.04842 0.4821 213 -0.02356 0.7325 213 0.03587 0.6026 213 0.07548 0.2728 213 0.23636 0.0005 213 0.50612 0.0001 213 IRRITBLE O.06257 0.3635 213 -0.11672 0.0924 209 0.06741 0.3275 213 0.02647 0.7009 213 0.05878 0.3933 213 0.02678 0.6976 213 -0.03227 0.6396 213 0.08581 0.2123 213 -0.05409 0.4323 213 -0.13422 0.0S04 213 0.00093 0.9892 213 O.35113 0.0001 213 O.68365 0.0001 213 NEGATIVE O.01738 0.8010 213 -O.04021 0.5632 209 0.22408 0.0010 213 0.02046 0.7665 213 O.02573 0.7088 213 0.00461 0.9466 213 -0.06160 0.3710 213 0.10685 0.1200 213 -0.14154 0.0390 213 -O.17832 0.0091 213 0.04185 0.5436 213 O.25986 0.0001 213 0.36197 0.0001 213 RESENT -0.05711 0.4069 213 -0.12502 0.0713 209 0.00377 0.9S64 213 -0.01947 0.7776 213 -0.02909 0.6729 213 0.03192 0.6432 213 0.04915 0.4755 213 0.07359 0.2850 213 -O.00556 0.9358 213 -0.27647 0.0001 213 -0.13330 0.0521 213 0.34012 0.0001 213 0.52070 0.0001 213 SUSPICIN -0.04927 0.4744 213 -0.09390 0.1763 209 0.12182 0.0761 213 -0.01624 0.8137 213 O.00545 0.9370 213 0.02768 0.6879 213 0.08740 0.2039 213 0.02350 0.7331 213 -O.05406 0.4325 213 -O.18036 0.0083 213 0.01835 0.7901 213 0.44266 0.0001 213 0.52590 0.0001 213 VERBLHOS 0.05207 0.4497 213 0.00583 0.9333 209 0.03320 0.6299 213 O.03212 0.6411 213 0.00708 0.9182 213 O.08074 0.2407 213 0.059S0 0.3875 213 O 11958 0.0816 213 -O.10026 0.1448 213 -0.05731 0.4053 213 0.41214 0.0001 213 O.10127 0.1407 213 0.42169 0.0001 213 GUILT 0.00085 0.9901 213 -0.24276 0.0004 209 0.11956 0.0817 213 -O.04462 0.5172 213 0.01123 0.8706 213 -0.01529 0.8244 213 -0.08722 0.2049 213 -0.03301 0.6318 213 0.07840 0.2546 213 0.06367 0.3551 213 -O.16088 0.0188 213 0.20654 0.0025 213 0.32782 0.0001 213 TOTLHOST 0.01017 0.8827 213 -0.13303 0.0548 209 0.10730 0.1184 213 0.01420 0.8368 213 0.02723 0.6927 213 0.03544 0.6070 213 -0.00641 0.9259 213 0.09250 0.1786 213 -0.05658 0.4113 213 -O.1S100 0.0276 213 0.10632 0.1219 213 0.40421 0.0001 213 0.73437 0.0001 213 SEXROLE O.04022 0.5786 193 O.10784 O.1396 189 O. 14641 0.0422 193 0.09468 0.1903 193 -0.00086 0.9905 193 -0.01531 0.8326 193 0.03328 0.6459 193 -0.01809 0.8028 193 0. 11063 O.1256 193 0.28093 0.0001 193 0. 18281 0.0109 193 -O.10203 O. 1580 193 -0.04695 0.5167 193 AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREO IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX OISREGD VERBALAG ID O.05438 0.4298 213 -0.07769 0.2589 213 0.01658 0.8099 213 -0.02376 0.7302 213 -0.00316 0.9634 213 0.00983 0.8866 213 -0.10578 O.1238 213 0.03750 0.5862 213 -0.04961 0.4713 213 -0.04433 0.5199 213 0.06417 0.3514 213 -0.14689 0.0321 213 -0.00788 0.9090 213 SAS SEX=2 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO:RHO =0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREQ IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGD VERBALAG GRADE -0.05759 0.4075 209 -0.12202 0.0784 209 0.09253 O.1827 209 -0.13252 0.0558 209 -0.08780 0.2062 209 -O.00909 0.8961 209 -0.08267 0.2340 209 0.14406 0.0374 209 -O.05739 0.4091 209 -O.05185 0.4560 209 -0.09037 O.1932 209 O.08488 0.2217 209 -0.04544 0.5135 209 RACE 0.05S01 0.4244 213 0.05288 0.4426 213 -0.03747 0.5866 213 0.06821 0.3218 213 O.15820 0.0209 213 0.16385 0.0167 213 0.04664 0.4984 213 0.00949 0.8905 213 -0.02879 0.6761 213 0.00166 0.9808 213 O.08133 0.2372 213 O. 14253 0.0377 213 0.02910 0.6728 213 AGE 0.01953 " 0.7769 213 -0.10245 0.1362 213 0.08210 0.2328 213 -0.08490 0.2172 213 -0.11862 0.0841 213 -0.09706 0.1581 213 -0.08559 0.2135 213 0.03772 0.5841 213 0.00322 0.9627 213 O.02913 0.6725 213 0.02612 0.7046 213 -0.00249 0.9711 213 -O.02901 0.6738 213 MARITAL 0.04659 0.4988 213 0.02183 0.7515 213 -O.08899 0.1958 213 0.07703 0.2630 213 -0.00183 0.9789 213 -0.09878 0.1508 213 -0.00983 0.8866 213 -0.01204 0.8613 213 0.12665 0.0650 213 O.10084 0.1424 213 0.04015 0.5601 213 O. 14044 0.0406 213 0.07643 0.2668 213 OADEO 0.08706 0.2057 213 -0.01604 0.8160 213 -0.06070 0.3781 213 0.06052 0.3795 213 0.00469 0.9458 213 -0.03558 0.6056 213 0.05577 0.4181 213 -0.02765 0.6883 213 0.10952 0.1110 213 O.12538 0.0678 213 0.07053 0.3056 213 0.04364 0.5265 213 0.08731 0.2044 213 MOMED 0.04239 0.5383 213 0.03103 0.6525 213 -0.01336 0.8462 213 0.03964 0.5650 213 -0.07603 0.2693 213 -0.03030 0.6601 213 0.05523 0.4226 213 -0.02240 0.7451 213 O.04396 0.5234 213 0.05491 0.4253 213 -0.04819 0.4842 213 0.05015 0.4665 213 0.03225 0.6398 213 HOME -0.00323 0.9627 213 0.03058 0.6572 213 0.01700 0.8052 213 0.00442 0.9489 213 -0.07523 0.2744 213 -0.06759 0.3262 213 -0.08053 0.2419 213 -0.07107 0.3019 213 0.10497 0.1267 213 0.08542 0.2144 213 0.05366 0.4359 213 -0.01118 0.8712 213 -0.02451 0.7221 213 PLACE 0.01260 0.8549 213 -0.02632 0.7025 213 0.00973 0.8877 213 -O.01265 0.8544 213 -0.06089 0.3765 213 -0.03844 0.5769 213 -0.08797 0.2009 213 -O.02578 0.7083 213 -0.12593 0.0666 213 -O.11338 0.0989 213 -0.04478 0.5157 213 -0.14817 0.0306 213 -0.15221 0.0263 213 RSA -O.13981 0.0415 213 -0.17955 0.0086 213 0.20680 0.0024 213 -O.25429 •0.0002 213 -0.18210 0.0077 213 0.01088 0.8745 213 -O.28782 0.0001 213 O.16756 0.0143 213 -0.30625 0.0001 213 -0.18531 0.0067 213 -0.04878 0.4789 213 -0.27109 0.0001 213 -0.22832 0.0008 213 RSB 0.20745 0.0023 213 -0.05781 0.4012 213 -0.05720 0.4062 213 O.08841 0.1987 213 -O.14524 0.0341 213 -O.09358 0.1736 213 0.06689 0.3312 213 -0.08871 0.1972 213 0.18138 0.0080 213 0.22215 0.0011 213 0.27780 0.0001 213 0.18210 0.0077 213 0.27435 0.0001 213 STASS O.23613 0.0005 213 0.30144 0.0001 213 -O.18937 0.0056 213 0.34384 0.0001 213 O.26283 0.0001 213 -0.07507 0.2754 213 O.28973 0.0001 213 -0.22280 0.0011 213 0. 19721 0.0039 213 0.18085 0.0082 213 0.31457 0.0001 213 0.20800 0.0023 213 0.21990 0.0012 213 STAST O.62634 0.0001 213 O.37791 0.0001 213 -0.52780 0.0001 213 0.72194 0.0001 213 O.36562 0.0001 213 -0.35078 0.0001 213 0.39935 0.0001 213 -0.50555 0.0001 213 0.49821 0.0001 213 0.48627 0.0001 213 0.67781 0.0001 213 O.39769 0.0001 213 0.50532 0.0001 213 AXOUT 1.OOOOO O.OOOO 213 0. 14553 0.0338 213 -0.56005 0.0001 213 0.78172 0.0001 213 0.24022 0.0004 213 -0.33363 0.0001 213 0.43599 0.0001 213 -0.44199 0.0001 213 0.58182 0.0001 213 0.57617 0.0001 213 0.72555 0.0001 213 0.43000 0.0001 213 0.64793 0.0001 213 N) O 00 5A5 SEX=2 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUWER OF OBSERVATIONS ro O VO AGGRESS 0.58182 0-0001 213 0.24657 0.0003 213 -0.41904 0.0001 213 0.58240 0.0001 213 0.20798 0.0023 213 -0.37656 0.0001 213 0.S7310 0.0001 213 -O.48821 0.0001 213 1.OOOOO 0.0000 213 0.86284 0.0001 213 0.62014 0.0001 213 O.62296 0.0001 213 0.73594 0.0001 213 HOSTILST 0.57617 0.0001 213 0.18446 0.0069 213 -0.43798 0.0001 213 0.56011 0.0001 213 0.11124 0.1054 213 -0.35992 0.0001 213 0.46266 0.0001 213 -O.49321 0.0001 213 O.86284 0.0001 213 1 OOOOO O.OOOO 213 0.58900 0.0001 213 0.72571 0.0001 213 O.72767 0.0001 213 ANGEREX 0.72555 0.0001 213 0. 16387 0.0167 213 -0.65563 0.0001 213 O.72747 0.0001 213 0.31292 0.0001 213 -O.31528 0.0001 213 0.39774 0.0001 213 -0.54240 0.0001 213 0.62014 0.0001 213 0.58900 0.0001 213 1.00000 O.OOOO 213 0.40424 0.0001 213 0.65927 0.0001 213 OISREGD 0.43000 0.0001 213 0.22114 0.0012 213 -0.27844 0.0001 213 0.43265 0.0001 213 O.19997 0.0034 213 -O.12304 0.0732 213 O.53067 0.0001 213 -0.27411 0.0001 213 0.62296 0.0001 213 0.72571 0.0001 213 0.40424 0.0001 213 1.00000 O.OOOO 213 0.55540 0.0001 213 VERBALAG 0.64793 0.0001 213 0. 14130 0.0394 213 -0.51120 0.0001 213 0.60783 0.0001 213 0.18013 0.0084 213 -0.30275 0.0001 213 0.57585 0.0001 213 -0.56834 0.0001 213 0.73594 0.0001 213 O.72767 0.0001 213 0.65927 0.0001 213 0.55540 0.0001 213 1.00000 O.OOOO 213 PHYSAGG O.53983 0.0001 213 O. 16792 0.0141 213 -O.44267 0.0001 213 0.53955 0.0001 213 0.21071 0.0020 213 -0.17992 0.0085 213 0.47301 0.0001 213 -0.40087 0.0001 213 0.61522 0.0001 213 0.64185 0.0001 213 0.67448 0.0001 213 0.54847 0.0001 213 0.49748 0.0001 213 AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXIN O.14553 0.0338 213 1.OOOOO 0.0000 213 -0.01857 0.7876 213 AXCON -0.56005 0.0001 213 -O.01857 0.7876 213 1 OOOOO 0.0000 213 AXEX 0.78172 0.0001 213 0.55307 0.0001 213 -0.77126 0.0001 213 BOI O.24022 0.0004 213 O.38252 0.0001 213 -0.19822 0.0037 213 DENIAL -0.33363 0.0001 213 -0.13800 0.0442 213 0.31530 O.OOOl 213 INFREQ 0.43599 O.OOOl 213 0.20042 0.0033 213 -0.28106 O.OOOl 213 IMPRESS -0.44199 O.OOOl 213 -0.32228 O.OOOl 213 0.43533 O.OOOl 213 AXEX 0.55307 0.0001 213 -O.77126 0.0001 213 1 OOOOO O.OOOO 213 0.38938 0.0001 213 -0.37209 0.0001 213 0.42652 0.0001 213 -0.56963 0.0001 213 BOI DENIAL INFREQ IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTXLST ANGEREX OISREGD VERBALAQ O.38252 -0.13800 0.20042 -O.32228 O.24657 O.18446 O.16387 0.22114 O.14130 0.0001 0.0442 0.0033 0.0001 0.0003 0.0069 0.0167 0.0012 0.0394 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 -O.19822 0.31530 -0.28106 0.43533 0.41904 -0.43798 -0.65563 -0.27844 -0.51120 0.0037 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 0.38938 -0.37209 0.42652 -0.56963 0.58240 0.56011 0.72747 0.43265 0.60783 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 1.00000 0.05332 0.33957 -0.26308 0.20798 0.11124 O.31292 0.19997 0.18013 O.OOOO 0.4389 0.0001 0.0001 0.0023 0.1054 0.0001 0.0034 0.0084 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 0.05332 1.00000 -0.02523 0.41772 -0.37656 -0.35992 -O.31528 -0.12304 -0.30275 0.4389 O.OOOO 0.7143 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0732 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 0.33957 -0.02523 1.00000 0.30248 0.57310 0.46266 O.39774 0.53067 O.57585 0.0001 0.7143 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 -0.26308 0.41772 -0.30248 1.00000 -0.48821 -0.49321 -O.54240 -0.27411 -O.56834 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 SAS SEX=2 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO:RH0=O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREQ IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX OISREGD VERBALAG PASSIVAG 0.47032 0.33815 -0.41155 0.57644 0.38522 -0.20195 0.53396 -0.52057 0.52687 0.49653 -O.54494 0.51510 O.53364 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0031 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 ASSERT 0.26633 -0.17100 -0.12527 0.09424 -0.24229 -0.19902 O.02036 -0.14254 0.21216 O.32356 O.25696 O.20637 0.35907 0.0001 213 0.0124 213 0.0680 213 0.1706 213 0.0004 213 0.0035 213 0.7677 213 0.0377 213 0.0018 213 0.0001 213 0.0001 213 0.0025 213 0.0001 213 SELFCGNF -0.01134 0.8693 213 -0.32315 0.0001 213 0.03259 0.6362 213 -0.17803 0.0092 213 -0.41144 0.0001 213 -0.09208 O.1806 213 -O.23207 0.0006 213 O. 12223 0.0751 213 -0.09387 0.1723 213 0.02317 0.7368 213 -O.04539 0.5099 213 -O.04896 0.4772 213 -O.00333 0.9615 213 INITASS 0.05590 0.4170 213 -0.23326 0.0006 213 0.04037 0.5579 213 -0.11087 0.1066 213 -0.30861 0.0001 213 -0.09138 0.1840 213 -O.15041 0.0282 213 0.07164 0.2980 213 -0.00663 0.9234 213 0.06965 0.3116 213 0.05663 0.4109 213 0.00493 0.9430 213 O.12186 0.0760 213 DEFENASS O.13568 0.0480 213 -0.22581 0.0009 213 -O.03967 0.5648 213 -0.03177 0.6447 213 -0.27559 0.0001 213 -O.12752 0.0632 213 -O.13077 0.0567 213 0.02307 0.7378 213 0.01627 0.8134 213 O.12249 0.0744 213 0.07695 0.2635 213 O.08375 0.2235 213 0.13344 0.0518 213 FRANK. 0.33830 0.0001 213 -0.27728 0.0001 213 -0.27052 0.0001 213 O.14976 0.0289 213 -0.12759 0.0631 213 -O.09723 0.1574 213 0.00550 0.9364 213 -0.16377 0.0167 213 0. 11882 0.0836 213 0.19879 0.0036 213 0.26154 0.0001 213 0.17428 0.0108 213 0.36004 0.0001 213 to h-» O PRAISE -0.04002 0.5614 213 -O.28984 0.0001 213 0.07860 0.2534 213 -O.19822 0.0037 213 -0.35653 0.0001 213 -0.05204 O.4499 213 -O.23992 0.0004 213 0.25425 0.0002 213 -O.12405 0.0708 213 0.00196 0.9773 213 -0.06591 0.3384 213 -0.03846 0.5767 213 -0.06929 0.3142 213 REQESTHE Ô.08971 0.1922 213 -O.27854 0.0001 213 -0.07357 0.2851 213 -O.05832 0.3971 213 -0.29708 0.0001 213 -0.20073 0.0033 213 -O.19486 0.0043 213 -0.05183 0-4518 213 -0.06129 0.3734 213 0.01694 0.8059 213 -0.00329 0.9619 213 -0.12867 0.0609 213 0.07879 0.2523 213 REFUSDEM 0.01196 0.8622 213 -0.26482 0.0001 213 0.02813 0.6832 213 -0.13784 0.0445 213 -0.27706 0.0001 213 -0.09923 0.1489 213 -0.19276 0.0048 213 0.01225 0.8589 213 0.00902 0.8959 213 0.05938 0.3885 213 0.00617 0.9286 213 -0.03469 0.6147 213 0.02428 0.7246 213 CONFLAVD -0.46820 0.0001 4 213 O. 17083 0.0125 213 0.33350 0.0001 213 -O.28840 0.0001 213 0.10566 O.1242 213 0. 19696 0.0039 213 -0.07694 0.2636 213 0.27629 0.0001 213 -0.32614 0.0001 213 -0.36650 0.0001 213 -0.45870 0.0001 213 -0.27143 0.0001 213 -0.53814 0.0001 213 DEPENDCY O. 17813 0.0092 213 O.11105 0.1061 213 -O.29831 0.0001 213 0.28561 0.0001 213 0.24329 0.0003 213 -0.18887 0.0057 213 0.19422 0.0044 213 -0.26602 0.0001 213 0.10270 0.1352 213 0.14320 0.0368 213 0.18129 0.0080 213 0.07530 0.2739 213 O.15942 0.0199 213 SHY 0.00750 0.9133 213 0.41764 0.0001 213 -0.04782 0.4875 213 0.23014 0.0007 213 0.32801 0.0001 213 0.09625 O. 1616 213 0.27466 0.0001 213 -O.20004 0.0034 213 O.16947 0.0133 213 0.06439 0.3497 213 0.06645 0.3344 213 O. 11692 0.0887 213 0.08193 0.2338 213 ASSAULT O.53745 0.0001 213 O.14080 0.0401 213 -0.46818 0.0001 213 0.53898 0.0001 213 0.15254 0.0260 213 -0.22029 0.0012 213 0.38032 0.0001 213 -O.35635 0.0001 213 O.52892 0.0001 213 0.60971 0.0001 213 O.61263 0.0001 213 0.45435 0.0001 213 0.48041 0.0001 213 SAS SEX=2 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0;RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREO IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGO VERBALAG imiRHOS 0.44348 0.0001 213 O.32046 0.0001 213 -0.39607 0.0001 213 0.54856 0.0001 213 0.22254 0.0011 213 -0.31100 0.0001 213 0.24304 0.0003 213 -0.50734 O.OOOl 213 0.37666 O.OOOl 213 0.38647 O.OOOl 213 O.58567 O.OOOl 213 0.17683 0.0097 213 0.41061 O.OOOl 213 IRRITBLE O.52831 0.0001 213 O.45808 0.0001 213 -0.45900 0.0001 213 0.68354 0.0001 213 O.41085 0.0001 213 -O.39393 0.0001 213 O.35697 O.OOOl « 213 -O.58959 0.0001 213 O.52932 O.OOOl 213 0.50069 O.OOOl 213 0.61558 O.OOOl 213 0.36880 O.OOOl 213 O.52304 O.OOOl 213 NEGATIVE 0.26470 0.0001 213 0.31817 0.0001 213 -0.22075 0.0012 213 0.38040 0.0001 213 0.23062 0.0007 213 -0.12172 0.0763 213 0.42102 0.0001 213 -O.32987 0.0001 213 O.39971 0.0001 213 O.34230 0.0001 213 0.33556 0.0001 213 0.40930 O.OOOl 213 O.38632 O.OOOl 213 RESENT 0.40596 0.0001 213 O.39469 0.0001 213 -O.37606 0.0001 213 O.55824 0.0001 213 0.34827 0.0001 213 -O.25143 0.0002 213 0.49155 0.0001 213 -0.45B30 0.0001 213 O.44977 O.OOOl 213 O.39309 O.OOOl 213 0.42433 O.OOOl 213 0.37896 O.OOOl 213 O.44106 O.OOOl 213 SUSPICIN 0.40049 0.0001 213 0.31749 0.0001 213 -O.37308 0.0001 213 O.51712 0.0001 213 O. 34849 0.0001 213 -0.24405 0.0003 213 O.42898 O.OOOl 213 -0.46623 0.0001 213 0.47626 O.OOOl 213 O.40486 O.OOOl 213 O.49691 O.OOOl 213 O.38105 0.0001 213 0.50742 O.OOOl 213 VERBLHOS O.59667 0.0001 213 -0.00411 0.9524 213 -O.45358 0.0001 213 0.48582 0.0001 213 0.04450 0.5183 213 -0.33100 0.0001 213 0.31755 O.OOOl 213 -0.41295 O.OOOl 213 O.49050 O.OOOl 213 0.54910 0.0001 213 0.59749 O.OOOl 213 0.40588 O.OOOl 213 0.68692 O.OOOl 213 GUILT O.OB612 0.2106 213 O.35677 0.0001 213 -O.15205 0.0265 213 O.28859 0.0001 213 O.37446 0.0001 213 -0.12973 0.0587 213 O.15311 0.0254 213 -0.23203 0.0006 213 0.04500 0.5136 213 -O.00877 0.8988 213 O.16274 0.0175 213 -O.02066 0.7643 213 O.03746 0.5867 213 TOTLHOST 0.63681 0.0001 213 0.41265 0.0001 213 -0.56221 0.0001 213 0.76130 0.0001 213 0.39051 0.0001 213 -0.38993 O.OOOl 213 0.51690 O.OOOl 213 -0.63418 O.OOOl 213 0.62837 O.OOOl 213 0.61560 O.OOOl 213 0.73957 O.OOOl 213 0.48268 O.OOOl 213 0.66943 O.OOOl 213 SEXROLE -0.04560 0.5289 193 -0.02306 0.7503 193 0.07386 0.3073 193 -0.06938 0.3377 193 -0.04979 0.4917 193 O.11350 0.1160 193 -O.13964 0.0528 193 0.06216 0.3905 193 -0.12831 0.0753 193 -0.04709 0.5155 193 O.01618 0.8233 193 -O.02317 0.7490 193 -O.08328 0.2495 193 PHYSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS DEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REOESTHE REFUSDEM CONFLAVO DEPENOCY SHY ID -0.00636 0.9265 213 0.03774 0.5838 213 -0.02674 0.6980 213 O.10502 0.1265 213 -0.063S0 0.3564 213 -0.00184 0.9787 213 -0.03951 0.5663 213 0.05565 0.4191 213 O.13719 0.0455 213 -0.05209 0.4495 213 0.06514 0.3441 213 0.09522 0.1662 213 -0.01353 0.8444 213 GRADE -0.04993 0.4728 209 -0.10300 0.1378 209 0.05161 0.4580 209 0.08497 0.2212 209 0.06500 0.3497 209 O.15923 0.0213 209 0.06378 0.3589 209 O.10511 0.1299 209 O.05915 0.3949 209 O.09596 0.1669 209 -0.03326 0.6326 209 -O.11033 0.1118 209 -0.04953 0.4764 209 RACE 0.07116 0.3012 213 O. 19393 0.0045 213 -0.03926 0.5688 213 -O.10290 0.1344 213 -0.05063 0.4624 213 -0.07694 0.2636 213 -0.07585 0.2704 213 -0.07718 0.2621 213 -O.17472 0.0106 213 -O.11444 0.0958 213 0.06809 0.3227 213 0. 13443 0.0501 213 0.08818 O.1999 213 SAS SEX=2 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RHG=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS PHYSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS DEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REQESTHE REFUSDEM CONFLAVO DEPENOCY SHY AGE 0.01540 0.8232 213 -0.01231 0.8583 213 O.10829 0.1151 213 0.05807 0.3991 213 0.09621 0.1618 213 O.15407 0.0245 213 -O.00566 0.9346 213 0.05644 0.4125 213 0.08639 0.2092 213 0.09973 0.1469 213 -0.05438 0.4298 213 0.05769 0.4022 213 -0.09440 O.1699 213 MARITAL 0.03857 0.5756 213 0.05272 0.4440 213 0.02969 0.6665 213 -O.01393 0.8398 213 0.05049 0.463S 213 -0.07598 0.2696 213 0.04551 0.5088 213 -0.01585 0.8181 213 -0.01682 0.8072 213 -0.14737 0.0316 213 -O.04367 O.S262 213 0.03311 0.6308 213 0.00992 0.8855 213 DADED 0.05430 0.4305 213 0.07152 0.2988 213 O.00653 0.9245 213 -0.01612 0.8151 213 -0.00638 0.9262 213 0.02515 0.7152 213 0.05345 0.4377 213 0.03264 0.6357 213 0.07052 0.3056 213 -0.06802 0.3231 213 -O.03329 0.6290 213 O.05472 0.4269 213 O.06527 0.3432 213 MOMED 0.00357 0.9587 213 0.08115 0.2383 213 -0.00252 0.9708 213 -0.01529 0.8245 213 -0.02146 0.7555 213 0.04689 0.4961 213 0.10051 0.1438 213 -0.03772 0.5841 • 213 0.04080 0.5537 213 -0.05101 0.4590 213 -0.04360 0.5268 213 0.02150 0.7551 213 O.02216 0.7478 213 HOME 0.05834 0.3969 213 0.02291 0.7396 213 -0.05769 0.4022 213 -0.04259 0.5365 213 -O.06989 0.3100 213 0.02698 0.6954 213 O.06828 0.3213 213 -O.02048 0.7663 213 0.01203 0.8615 213 0.05471 0.4270 213 -0.00520 0.9398 213 O.13475 0.0495 213 0.05530 0.4220 213 PLACE -0.03956 0.5658 213 0.00800 0.9076 213 -O.16152 0.0183 213 -0.13364 0.0514 213 -O.11845 0.0846 213 -0.12839 0.0614 213 -0.07401 0.2822 213 -O.13493 0.0492 213 -0.04448 0.5185 213 -O.10787 0.1165 213 O. 11420 0.0964 213 0.06014 0.3825 213 -0.02050 0.7661 213 RSA -0.15422 0.0244 213 -0.23642 0.0005 213 0.14075 0.0401 213 0.22408 0.0010 213 O.17826 0.0091 213 0.16823 0.0140 213 0.09567 0.1641 213 0.28774 0.0001 213 O.18670 0.0063 213 0.11703 0.0884 213 -0.01899 0.7829 213 0.13070 0.0569 213 -0.30370 0.0001 213 RSB 0.20741 0.0023 213 -0.06730 0.3283 213 O.53245 0.0001 213 0.35264 0.0001 213 O.54946 0.0001 213 O.46259 0.0001 213 0.39578 0.0001 213 0.26217 0.0001 213 O.27738 0.0001 213 O.24776 0.0003 213 -O.47427 0.0001 213 -O.14993 0.0287 213 -O.43978 0.0001 213 STASS 0.29632 0.0001 213 O.36028 0.0001 213 -0.04146 0.5473 213 -O.23245 0.0006 213 -O.16811 0.0140 213 -O.16410 0.0165 213 -0:03672 0.5941 213 -O.14548 0.0338 213 -O.16200 0.0180 213 -0.13944 0.0420 213 0.01222 0.8592 213 0.18180 0.0078 213 0.27569 0.0001 213 STAST 0.46355 0.0001 213 0.51206 0.0001 213 0.08998 0.1908 213 -0.20921 0.0021 213 -O.10494 O.1268 213 0.00266 0.9692 213 0.08373 0.2236 213 -0.19899 0.0035 213 -0.07898 0.2511 213 -0.09178 O.1821 213 -O.20887 0.0022 213 0.26464 0.0001 213 0.20325 0.0029 213 AXOUT 0.53983 0.0001 213 0.47032 0.0001 213 O.26633 0.0001 213 -0.01134 0.8693 213 0.05590 0.4170 213 O.13568 0.0480 213 O.33830 0.0001 213 -0.04002 0.5614 213 0.08971 O. 1922 213 0.01196 0.8622 213 -0.46820 0.0001 213 0.17813 0.0092 213 0.00750 0.9133 213 AXIN 0. 16792 0.0141 213 O.33815 0.0001 213 -O.17100 0.0124 213 -O.32315 0.0001 213 -0.23326 0.0006 213 -O.22581 0.0009 213 -0.27728 0.0001 213 -0.28984 0.0001 213 -0.27854 0.0001 213 -0.26482 0.0001 213 0.17083 0.0125 213 0.11105 O.1061 213 0.41764 0.0001 213 AXCON -0.44267 0.0001 213 -0.41155 0.0001 213 -O.12527 0.0680 213 0.03259 0.6362 213 0.04037 0.5579 213 -0.03967 0.5648 213 -0.27052 0.0001 213 0.07860 0.2534 213 -0.07357 0.2851 213 0.02813 0.6832 213 O.33350 0.0001 213 -0.29831 0.0001 213 -0.04782 0.4875 213 AXEX SAS SEX=2 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS PHYSAGO PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS OEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REQESTHE REFUSDEM CONFLAVD DEPENOCY 0.53955 0.57644 O.09424 -O.17803 -0.11087 -0.03177 O.14976 -O.19822 -0.05832 -0.13784 -O.28840 0.28561 0.0001 0.0001 O.1706 0.0092 O.1066 0.6447 0.0289 0.0037 0.3971 0.044S 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 SHY O.23014 0.0007 213 BO I 0.21071 0.0020 213 O.38522 0.0001 213 -0.24229 0.0004 213 -0.41144 0.0001 213 -O.30861 O.OOOl 213 -0.27559 O.OOOl 213 -O.12759 0.0631 213 -O.35653 O.OOOl 213 -0.29708 O.OOOl 213 -0.27706 O.OOOl 213 0.10566 0.1242 213 0.24329 0.0003 213 0.32801 O.OOOl 213 DENIAL -O.17992 0.0085 213 -0.20195 0.0031 213 -0.19902 0.0035 213 -0.09208 0.1806 213 -O 09138 0.1840 213 -0.12752 0.0632 213 -0.09723 0.1574 213 -0.05204 0.4499 213 -0.20073 0.0033 213 -0.09923 O. 1489 213 0.19696 0.0039 213 -0.18887 0.0057 213 O.09625 O.1616 213 INFREO o;47301 0.0001 213 0.53396 O.OOOl 213 0.02036 0.7677 213 -O.23207 o.oooe 213 -0.15041 0.0282 213 -0.13077 0.0567 213 0.00550 0.9364 213 -0.23992 0.0004 213 -0.19486 0.0043 213 -0.19276 0.0048 213 -0.07694 0.2636 213 0.19422 0.0044 213 0.27466 O.OOOl 213 IMPRESS -0.40087 0.0001 213 -0.52057 O.OOOl 213 -0.14254 0.0377 213 0.12223 0.0751 213 0.07164 0.2980 213 0.02307 0.7378 213 -0.16377 0.0167 213 0.25425 0.0002 213 -0.05183 0.4518 213 0.01225 0.8589 _ 213 O.27629 0.0001 213 -0.26602 0.0001 213 -0.20004 0.0034 213 AGGRESS 0.61522 O.OOOl 213 0.52687 O.OOOl 213 0.21216 0.0018 213 -0.09387 O. 1723 213 -0.00663 0.9234 213 0.01627 0.8134 213 0.11882 0.0836 213 -0.12405 0.0708 213 -0.06129 0.3734 213 0.00902 0.8959 213 -0.32614 O.OOOl 213 0.10270 O.1352 213 0. 16947 0.0133 213 HOSTILST 0.64185 O.OOOl 213 0.49653 O.OOOl 213 0.32356 O.OOOl 213 0.02317 0.7368 213 O.06965 0.3116 213 0. 12249 0.0744 213 0. 19879 0.0036 213 0.00196 0.9773 213 0.01694 0.8059 213 0.05938 0.3885 213 -0.36650 O.OOOl 213 0.14320 0.0368 213 0.06439 0.3497 213 ANGEREX 0.67448 O.OOOl 213 0.54494 0.0001 213 0.25696 0.0001 213 -O.04539 0.5099 213 0.05663 0.4109 213 0.07695 0.2635 213 0.26154 0.0001 213 -O.06591 0.3384 213 -0.00329 0.9619 213 O.00617 0.9286 213 -O.45870 0.0001 213 0. 18129 0.0080 213 0.06645 0.3344 213 DISREGD 0.54847 O.OOOl 213 0.51510 0.0001 213 O.20637 0.0025 213 -0.04896 0.4772 213 0.00493 0.9430 213 0.08375 0.2235 213 O.17428 0.0108 213 -0.03846 0.5767 213 -0.12867 0.0609 213 -O.03469 0.6147 213 -0.27143 0.0001 213 0.07530 0.2739 213 0.11692 0.0887 213 VERBALAG O.49748 0.0001 213 O.53364 0.0001 213 O.35907 0.0001 213 -0.00333 0.9615 213 O. 12186 0.0760 213 O. 13344 0.0518 213 0.36004 0.0001 213 -O.06929 0.3142 213 0.07879 0.2523 213 0.02428 0.7246 213 -O.53814 O.OOOl 213 0. 15942 0.0199 213 0.08193 0.2338 213 PHYSAGG 1.00000 0.0000 213 O.53915 0.0001 213 O. 17420 0.0109 213 -O.09276 0.1774 213 0.01342 0.8456 213 0.02924 0.6714 213 0.10858 0.1141 213 -0.11972 0.0813 213 -0.10997 0.1095 213 -0.02978 0.6656 213 -0.26538 O.OOOl 213 0.06494 0.3456 213 0.08612 0.2107 213 PASSIVAG O.53915 0.0001 213 1.OOOOO 0.0000 213 -0.02406 0.7270 213 -0.30995 0.0001 213 -0.19884 0.0036 213 -O.23450 0.0006 213 -0.01991 0.7726 213 -0.31688 O.OOOl 213 -0.20127 0.0032 213 -O.28971 0.0001 213 -0.06709 0.3298 213 0.39832 0.0001 213 O.35246 0.0001 213 ASSERT 0. 17420 0.0109 213 -0.02406 0.7270 213 1.00000 O.OOOO 213 0.57926 O.OOOl 213 0.84387 O.OOOl 213 0.63018 O.OOOl 213 0.53836 O.OOOl 213 0.51195 0.0001 213 0.44354 O.OOOl 213 0.39845 O.OOOl 213 -0.63617 0.0001 213 -0.13749 0.0450 213 -0.60087 0.0001 213 |S3 H» CO SAS SEX=2 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS PHYSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS DEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REQESTHE REFUSDEM CONFLAVD DEPENDCY SHY SELFCONF -0.09276 0.1774 213 -O.30995 0.0001 213 O.57926 0.0001 213 1.OOOOO O.OOOO 213 O.54432 0.0001 213 0.55488 0.0001 213 0.43861 0.0001 213 0.79830 0.0001 213 0.70786 0.0001 213 0.45172 0.0001 213 -0.41493 0.0001 213 -0.29551 O.OOOl 213 -0.58256 O.OOOl 213 INITASS O.01342 0.8456 213 -0.19884 0.0036 213 0.84387 0.0001 213 0.54432 0.0001 213 1.00000 O.OOOO 213 0.57809 0.0001 213 0.46399 0.0001 213 0.47009 0.0001 213 0.45482 0.0001 213 0.40090 0.0001 213 -0.56140 0.0001 213 -O.27872 O.OOOl 213 -O.62953 0.0001 213 DEFENASS 0.02924 0.6714 213 -0.23450 0.0006 213 0.63018 0.0001 213 0.55488 0.0001 213 0.57809 0.0001 213 1.00000 O.OOOO 213 0.47068 0.0001 213 0.43478 0.0001 213 0.47354 0.0001 213 0.51670 0.0001 213 -O.57494 0.0001 213 -O.31883 O.OOOl 213 -O.52591 0.0001 213 FRANK 0.10858 O.1141 213 -0.01991 0.7726 213 0.53836 0.0001 213 0.43861 0.0001 213 0.46399 0.0001 213 0.47068 0.0001 213 1.00000 O.OOOO 213 O.34991 0.0001 213 0.42942 0.0001 213 O.30298 0.0001 213 -O.73895 O.OOOl 213 -O.11843 0.0847 213 -O.34131 O.OOOl 213 to H' REFUSDEM -0.02978 0.6656 213 -0.28971 0.0001 213 O.39845 0.0001 213 O.45172 0.0001 213 0.40090 0.0001 213 0.51670 0.0001 213 0.30298 0.0001 213 0.31627 0.0001 213 0.41981 0.0001 213 1.00000 O.OOOO 213 -0.40329 O.OOOl 213 -0.41418 O.OOOl 213 -0.33244 O.OOOl 213 CONFLAVD -O.26538 0.0001 213 -0.06709 0.3298 213 -O.63617 0.0001 213 -O.41493 0.0001 213 -0.56140 0.0001 213 -0.57494 0.0001 213 -O.73895 0.0001 213 -0.29021 O.OOOl 213 -0.39468 O.OOOl 213 -O.40329 O.OOOl 213 1.00000 O.OOOO 213 0.25341 0.0002 213 0.34511 O.OOOl 213 DEPENDCY 0.06494 0.3456 213 O.39832 0.0001 213 -O.13749 0.0450 213 -O.29551 0.0001 213 -O.27872 0.0001 213 -O.31883 0.0001 213 -O.11843 0.0847 213 -0.22981 0.0007 213 -0.12196 0.0757 213 -0.41418 0.0001 213 0.25341 0.0002 213 1.00000 O.OOOO 213 0.10960 O.1107 213 SHY 0.08612 0.2107 213 O.35246 0.0001 213 -O.60087 0.0001 213 -0.58256 0.0001 213 -O.62953 0.0001 213 -O.52591 0.0001 213 -0.34131 O.OOOl 213 -0.50213 O.OOOl 213 -0.43987 O.OOOl 213 -0.33244 O.OOOl 213 0.34511 O.OOOl 213 0.10960 0.1107 213 1.00000 O.OOOO 213 ASSAULT O.68742 O.OOOl 213 0.43620 O.OOOl 213 O.16928 0.0134 213 -0.02103 0.7602 213 0.01535 0.8238 213 0.09639 O. 1610 213 0.19013 0.0054 213 -0.08028 0.2434 213 -0.05700 0.4078 213 0.02313 0.7372 213 -0.33806 O.OOOl 213 0.05698 0.4080 213 0.08753 O.2032 213 INDIRHOS O.43398 0.0001 213 0.38856 0.0001 213 0.05988 0.3845 213 -0.10419 0. 1296 213 -0.09344 O.1743 213 -0.05268 0.4444 213 0.11036 O.1083 213 -0.08507 0.2163 213 -0.04509 0.5128 213 -0.11136 0.1051 213 -O.16067 0.0190 213 0.26818 O.OOOl 213 O.15623 0.0226 213 IRRITBLE G.45993 O.OOOl 213 0.62105 O.OOOl 213 0.02967 0.6667 213 -O.22245 0.0011 213 -0.18109 0.0081 213 -O.10504 O.1265 213 0.01232 0.8581 213 -0.21558 0.0016 213 -0.11531 0.0932 213 -0.17882 0.0089 213 -O.13645 0.0467 213 0.35241 0.0001 213 O.28953 0.0001 213 PRAISE -0.11972 -O.31688 0.51195 0.79830 0.47009 0.43478 O.34991 1.00000 O.42686 O.31627 -0.29021 -O.22981 -O.50213 0.0813 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0007 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 REQESTHE -0.10997 -0.20127 0.44354 0.70786 0.45482 0.47354 0.42942 0.42686 1.00000 0.41981 -O.39468 -O.12196 -0.43987 O.1095 0.0032 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0757 0.0001 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 SAS SEX=2 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS PHVSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS DEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REQESTHE REFUSDEM CONFLAVD DEPENDCY SHY NEGATIVE O.32983 0.0001 213 O.53735 0.0001 213 0.02773 0.6874 213 -0.14332 0.0366 213 -O.14877 0.0300 213 -0.07945 0.2483 213 -0.02102 0.7603 213 -O.14075 0.0401 213 -0.17433 0.0108 213 -O.12434 0.0701 213 -0.10042 0.1441 213 0.18382 0.0071 213 O.26411 0.0001 213 RESENT O.42033 0.0001 213 0.64345 0.0001 213 -0.10950 0.1110 213 -0.37603 0.0001 213 -0.28919 0.0001 213 -0.27766 0.0001 213 -0.07906 0.2506 213 -0.35840 0.0001 213 -0.25566 0.0002 213 -0.22980 0.0007 213 0.03464 0.6151 213 0.40034 0.0001 213 O.36909 0.0001 213 SUSPICIN 0.41571 0.0001 213 O.62671 0.0001 213 -0.05S24 0.4225 213 -O.35752 0.0001 213 -O.23060 0.0007 213 -O.18764 0.0060 213 0.02219 0.7474 213 -0.31961 0.0001 213 -0.15611 0.0227 213 -0.19270 0.0048 213 -0.10059 O.1434 213 0.31195 0.0001 213 0.38623 0.0001 213 VERBLHOS 0.39944 0.0001 213 O.34829 0.0001 213 0.52348 0.0001 213 0.25176 0.0002 213 0.32023 0.0001 213 0.41225 0.0001 213 0.50484 0.0001 213 0.16394 0.0166 213 0.25523 0.0002 213 0. 19579 0.0041 213 -0.63704 0.0001 213 0.02243 0.7448 213 -0.17824 0.0091 213 GUILT 0.02019 0.7696 213 O.27084 0.0001 213 -0.26022 0.0001 213 -0.42121 0.0001 213 -0.30217 0.0001 213 -0.39211 0.0001 213 -0.27380 0.0001 213 -0.33925 0.0001 213 -0.28198 0.0001 213 -0.34951 0.0001 213 0.29586 0.0001 213 0.47425 0.0001 213 0.27424 0.0001 213 TOTLHOST 0.60782 0.0001 213 0.71583 0.0001 213 0.10124 O.1408 213 -O.23757 0.0005 213 -O.14289 0.0372 213 -0.07928 0.2493 213 0.11811 0.0855 213 -0.24072 0.0004 213 -0.13093 0.0564 213 -0.16123 0.0185 213 -0.24829 0.0003 213 O.37549 0.0001 213 O.28314 0.0001 213 SEXROLE 0.00188 0.9793 193 -0.01275 0.8603 193 0.08356 0.2480 193 0.08187 0.2577 193 0. 14160 0.0495 193 0.04075 0.5737 193 0.10131 0.1609 193 0.11974 0.0972 193 0.07316 0.3120 193 -0.02081 0.7739 193 -0.08978 0.2144 193 O.07483 0.3010 193 -0.15795 0.0282 193 ASSAULT INDIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHDST SEXROLE ID -0.03247 0.6375 213 0.05156 0.4541 213 0.06257 0.363S 213 0.01738 0.8010 213 -0.05711 0.4069 213 -0.04927 0.4744 213 0.0S207 0.4497 213 0.00085 0.9901 213 0.01017 0.8827 213 0.04022 O.S786 193 GRADE -0.01180 0.8654 209 -O.10533 0.1291 209 -O.11672 0.0924 209 -O.04021 0.5632 209 -O.12502 0.0713 209 -0.09390 0. 1763 209 0.00583 X>.9333 209 -O.24276 0.0004 209 -O.13303 0.0548 209 O.10784 0.1396 189 RACE 0.06635 0.3352 213 O.00179 0.9793 213 0.06741 0.3275 213 0.22408 0.0010 213 0.00377 0.9564 213 O. 12182 0.0761 213 0.03320 0.6299 213 0.11956 0.0817 213 O.10730 0.1184 213 O. 14641 0.0422 193 AGE 0.03868 0.5745 213 O.02903 0.6736 213 0.02647 0.7009 213 0.02046 0.7665 213 -0.01947 0.7776 213 -0.01624 0.8137 213 0.03212 0.6411 213 -0.04462 0.5172 213 O.01420 0.8368 213 0.09468 O.1903 193 MARITAL 0.05970 -0.00450 0.3860 0.9480 213 213 O.OS878 0.3933 213 O.02573 -0.02909 0.00545 0.7088 0.6729 0.9370 213 213 213 0.00708 O.01123 0.02723 0.00086 0.9182 0.8706 0.6927 0.9905 213 213 213 193 DADED HOMED HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS STAST AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX SAS SEX=2 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROS > |R| UNDER HO:RH0=O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS ASSAULT INDIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST SEXROLE 0.02057 0.04007 0.7654 0.5609 213 213 0.01816 -0.11202 0.7921 0.1030 213 213 0.02678 0.00461 0.6976 0.9466 213 213 -0.03227 -0.06160 0.6396 0.3710 213 213 0.03192 0.02768 0.6432 0.6879 213 213 O.04915 O.08740 0.4755 0.2039 213 213 0.08074 -0.01529 0-2407 0.8244 213 213 0.05950 -0.08722 0.3875 0.2049 213 213 0.03544 -0.01531 0.6070 0.8326 213 193 -0.00641 0.03328 0.92S9 0.6459 213 193 0.06704 0.04842 0.08581 0.10685 0.07359 0.02350 O.11958 -0.03301 0.09250 -0.01809 0.3302 0.4821 0.2123 0.1200 0.2850 0.7331 0.0816 0.6318 0.1786 0.8028 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193 •O.02332 -0.02356 -0.05409 -O.14154 -0.00556 -0.05406 -0.10026 O.07840 -0.05658 0.11063 0.1256 193 0.28093 0.0001 193 0.7350 213 0.7325 213 0.4323 213 0.0390 213 0.9358 213 0.4325 213 0. 1448 213 0.2546 213 0.4113 213 O. 11191 0.1034 213 0.03587 0.6026 213 -O.13422 0.0504 213 -0.17832 0.0091 213 -0.27647 O.OOOl 213 -O.18036 0.0083 213 -O.05731 0.4053 213 0-06367 0.3551 213 -0-15100 0.0276 213 O.19354 0.0046 213 O.07548 0-2728 213 0.00093 0.9892 213 O.04185 0.5436 213 -0.13330 0.0521 213 0.01835 0.7901 213 0.41214 O.OOOl 213 -0-16088 0.0188 213 0.10632 O. 1219 213 0.25569 0.0002 213 O.23636 0.0005 213 0.35113 0.0001 213 0.25986 0.0001 213 0.34012 O.OOOl 213 0.44266 O.OOOl 213 0-10127 O.1407 213 0-20654 0.0025 213 0.40421 O.OOOl 213 0.51692 0.0001 213 0.50612 0.0001 213 0-68365 0-0001 213 0.36197 0.0001 213 0.52070 0.0001 213 O.52590 0.0001 213 0.42169 O.OOOl 213 0.32782 0.0001 213 0.73437 O.OOOl 213 0.53745 0.0001 213 0.44348 0.0001 213 O-52831 0.0001 213 0.26470 0.0001 213 0.40596 0.0001 213 0.40049 O.OOOl 213 0.59667 O.OOOl 213 0.08612 0.2106 213 0.63681 0.0001 213 O.14080 0.0401 213 0.32046 0.0001 213 O.45808 0.0001 213 0.31817 O.OOOl 213 O.39469 0.0001 213 O.31749 0.0001 213 -0.00411 0.9524 213 O.35677 O.OOOl 213 0.41265 O.OOOl 213 N> M 0.18281 0.0109 193 0.1580 193 0.5167 193 -0.04560 0.5289 193 0.7503 193 -O.46818 -0.39607 -0.45900 -0.22075 -0.37606 -0.37308 -0.45358 -0.15205 -0.56221 O.07386 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0012 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0265 0.0001 0.3073 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193 0.53898 0.54856 0.68354 0.38040 O.55824 0.51712 O.48582 0.28859 0.76130 0.06938 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.3377 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193 BDI O.15254 O.22254 0.41085 0.23062 0.34827 O.34849 0.04450 O.37446 0.39051 -O.04979 0.0260 0.0011 0.0001 0.0007 0.0001 0.0001 0.5183 0.0001 0.0001 0.4917 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193 SEX=2 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS ASSAULT INDIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST SEXROLE DENIAL -0.22029 -O.31100 -O.39393 -O.12172 -O.25143 0.24405 -0.33100 -0.12973 -0.38993 0.11350 0.0012 0.0001 0.0001 0.0763 0.0002 0.0003 0.0001 0.0587 0.0001 0.1160 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 213 193 INFREO O.38032 0.24304 0.35697 0.42102 0.49155 0.42898 0.31755 0.15311 0.51690 -O.13964 0.0001 213 0.0003 213 0.0001 213 0.0001 213 0.0001 213 O.OOOl 213 O.OOOl 213 0.0254 213 0.0001 213 0.0528 193 IMPRESS -0.35635 0.0001 213 -0.50734 0.0001 213 -0.58959 0.0001 213 -0.32987 0.0001 213 -0.45830 0.0001 213 -0.46623 O.OOOl 213 -0.41295 O.OOOl 213 -0.23203 0.0006 213 -0.63418 O.OOOl 213 0.06216 0.3905 193 AGGRESS O.52892 0.0001 213 0.37666 0.0001 213 0.52932 0.0001 213 0.39971 0.0001 213 O.44977 0.0001 213 0.47626 0.0001 213 O.49050 0.0001 213 0.04500 0.5136 213 0.62837 0.0001 213 -O.12831 0.0753 193 HOSTILST 0.60971 0.0001 213 O.38647 0.0001 213 0.50069 0.0001 213 O. 34230 0.0001 213 0.39309 0.0001 213 0.40486 0.0001 213 0.54910 0.0001 213 -0.00877 0.8988 213 0.61560 0.0001 213 -0.04709 0.5155 193 ANGEREX O.61263 0.0001 213 0.58567 0.0001 213 0.61558 0.0001 213 0.33556 0.0001 213 0.42433 0.0001 213 O.49691 0.0001 213 0.59749 0.0001 213 0.16274 0.0175 213 0.73957 0.0001 213 0.01618 0.8233 193 OISREGO 0.45435 0.0001 213 0.17683 0.0097 213 0.36880 0.0001 213 O.40930 0.0001 213 0.37896 0.0001 213 O.38105 0.0001 213 O.40588 0.0001 213 -O.02066 0.7643 213 0.48268 0.0001 213 -0.02317 0.7490 193 VERBALAG 0.48041 0.0001 213 0.41061 0.0001 213 0.52304 0.0001 213 O.38632 0.0001 213 0.44106 0.0001 213 0.50742 0.0001 213 O.68692 0.0001 213 0.03746 0.5867 213 0.66943 O.OOOl 213 -0.08328 0.2495 193 PHYSAGG 0.68742 0.0001 213 O.43398 0.0001 213 O.45993 0.0001 213 0.32983 0.0001 213 O.42033 0.0001 213 0.41571 0.0001 213 O.39944 0.0001 213 0.02019 0.7696 213 0.60782 0.0001 213 0.00188 0.9793 193 PASSIVAG 0.43620 0.0001 213 O.38856 0.0001 213 0.62105 0.0001 213 0.53735 0.0001 213 O.64345 0.0001 213 0.62671 0.0001 213 0.34829 O.OOOl 213 0.27084 O.OOOl 213 0.71583 O.OOOl 213 -0.01275 O.8603 193 ASSERT O.16928 0.0134 213 0.05988 0.3845 213 0.02967 0.6667 213 0.02773 0.6874 213 -O.10950 0. 1110 213 -0.05524 0.422S 213 O.52348 O.OOOl 213 -0.26022 O.OOOl 213 0.10124 O.1408 213 0.08356 0.2480 193 SELFCONF -0.02103 0.7602 213 -O.10419 0.1296 213 -O.22245 0.0011 213 -O.14332 0.0366 213 -0.37603 0.0001 213 -0.35752 0.0001 213 0.25176 0.0002 213 -0.42121 O.OOOl 213 -0.23757 0.0005 213 0.08187 0.2577 193 INITASS 0.01535 0.8238 213 -O.09344 0. 1743 213 -O.18109 0.0081 213 -0.14877 0.0300 213 -O.28919 0.0001 213 -0.23060 0.0007 213 0.32023 O.OOOl 213 -0.30217 O.OOOl 213 -0.14289 0.0372 213 0. 14160 0.0495 193 SAS SEX=2 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS ASSAULT INDIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST SEXROLE DEFENASS 0.09639 0.1610 213 -O.05268 0.4444 213 -O.10504 0.1265 213 -0.07945 0.2483 213 -O.27766 0.0001 213 -o.18764 0.0060 213 O.41225 0.0001 213 -O.39211 0.0001 213 -0.07928 0.2493 213 0.04075 0.5737 193 FRANK 0.19013 0.0054 213 0.11036 0.1083 213 0.01232 0.8581 213 -0.02102 0.7603 213 -0.07906 0.2506 213 0.02219 0.7474 213 0.50484 0.0001 213 -0.27380 0.0001 213 0. 11811 0.0855 213 0.10131 O.1609 193 PRAISE -0.08028 0.2434 213 -0.08507 0.2163 213 -0.21558 0.0016 213 -0.14075 0.0401 213 -O.35840 0.0001 213 -0.31961 0.0001 213 0.16394 0.0166 213 -0.33925 0.0001 213 -0.24072 0.0004 213 0.11974 0.0972 193 REQESTHE -0.05700 0.4078 213 -0.04509 0.5128 213 -0.11531 0.0932 213 -0.17433 0.0108 213 -0.25566 0.0002 213 -0.15611 0.0227 213 0.25523 0.0002 213 -0.28198 0.0001 213 -O.13093 0.0564 213 0.07316 0.3120 193 REFUSDEM 0.02313 0.7372 213 -0.11136 0.1051 213 -0.17882 0.0089 213 -0.12434 0.0701 213 -0.22980 0.0007 213 -0.19270 0.0048 213 0.19579 0.0041 213 -0.34951 0.0001 213 -O.16123 0.0185 213 -0.02081 0.7739 193 CONFLAVD -0.33806 0.0001 213 -O.16067 0.0190 213 -0.13645 0.0467 213 -0.10042 0-1441 213 O.03464 0.6151 213 -0.10059 0.1434 213 -O.63704 0.0001 213 0.29586 0.0001 213 -0.24829 0.0003 213 -O.08978 0.2144 193 DEPENDCY 0.05698 0.4080 213 0.26818 0.0001 213 0.35241 0.0001 213 O. 18382 0.0071 213 0.40034 0.0001 213 0.31195 0.0001 213 0.02243 0.7448 213 0.47425 0.0001 213 0.37549 0.0001 213 0.07483 0.3010 193 SHY 0.08753 0.2032 213 0.15623 0.0226 213 0.28953 0.0001 213 0.26411 0.0001 213 O.36909 0.0001 213 0.38623 0.0001 213 -0.17824 0.0091 213 0.27424 0.0001 213 0.28314 0.0001 213 -0.15795 0.0282 193 ASSAULT 1 OOOOO O.OOOO 213 O.40192 0.0001 213 0.48691 0.0001 213 0.30602 0.0001 213 0.37340 0.0001 213 0.37055 0.0001 213 0.45863 0.0001 213 0.04731 0.4923 213 0.67557 0.0001 213 0.00208 0.9771 193 INDIRHOS 0.40192 0.0001 213 1.00000 0.0000 213 0.55476 0.0001 213 0.28477 0.0001 213 O.40607 0.0001 213 O.30799 0.0001 213 0.36076 0.0001 213 O.22260 0.0011 213 0.66380 0.0001 213 -0.08314 0.2504 193 IRRITBLE 0.48691 0.0001 213 O.55476 0.0001 213 1.OOOOO 0.0000 213 0.51008 0.0001 213 O.58258 0.0001 213 O.58508 0.0001 213 O.41949 0.0001 213 O.37629 0.0001 213 0.8S071 0.0001 213 -0.02566 0.7232 193 NEGATIVE 0.30602 0.0001 213 0.28477 0.0001 213 0.51008 0.0001 213 1.OOOOO 0.0000 213 O.40552 0.0001 213 0.42777 0.0001 213 O.31225 0.0001 213 O.11183 0.1036 213 0.58157 0.0001 213 -O.05316 0.4628 193 RESENT 0.37340 0.0001 213 0.40607 0.0001 213 0.58258 0.0001 213 O.40552 0.0001 213 1.OOOOO o.oooo 213 O.63073 0.0001 213 0.27314 0.0001 213 0.36327 0.0001 213 0.74557 0.0001 213 -0.14493 0.0443 193 SAS SEX=2 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS ASSAULT INDIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST SEXROLE SUSPICIN O.37055 0.0001 213 0.30799 0.0001 213 0.58508 0.0001 213 VERBLHOS O.45863 0.0001 213 O.36076 0.0001 213 0.41949 0.0001 213 GUILT 0.04731 0.4923 213 O.22260 0.0011 213 O.37629 0.0001 213 TOTLHOST O.67557 0.0001 213 0.66380 0.0001 213 0.85071 0.0001 213 SEXROLE 0.00208 0.9771 193 -0.08314 0.2504 193 -0.02566 0.7232 193 0.0001 213 0.0001 213 0.1036 213 0.0001 213 0.4628 193 0.63073 0.0001 213 0.0001 213 0.0001 213 0.0001 213 0.0443 193 1.OOOOO O.OOOO 213 0.30810 0.0001 213 0.0001 213 0.0001 213 0.3600 193 0.30810 0.39306 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 1-OOOOO -O.11003 O.OOOO 0.1093 213 213 -0.11003 1.OOOOO 0.1093 0.0000 213 213 0.60498 0.43667 0.0001 0.0001 213 213 -O.00515 0.01070 0.9433 0.8826 193 193 0.0001 0.36C0 213 193 0.0001 0.9433 213 193 0.0001 213 0.8826 193 1.OOOOO -0.06266 O.OOOO 0.3867 213 193 0.3867 193 1 OOOOO O.OOOO 193 N> t-» \o 220 APPENDIX D. PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR SAMPLE VARIABLES SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS ID GRADE SEX RACE AGE MARITAL DADED MOMED HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS ID 1.00000 O.OOOO 456 0.01871 0.6923 450 -0.03950 0.4005 455 0.02745 0.5592 455 0.02503 0.5944 455 -0.05475 0.2438 455 0.01819 0.6988 455 -0.03950 0.4006 455 0.05288 0.2625 451 0.03271 0.4869 454 0.01882 0.6888 455 -0.04991 0.2880 455 -O.00895 0.8489 456 GRADE 0.01871 0.6923 450 1.00000 O.OOOO 450 0.26188 0.0001 449 0.09286 0.0493 449 0.56473 0.0001 449 O.20795 0.0001 449 -0.08718 0.0649 449 -0.08800 0.062S 449 0.02193 0.6445 445 O.03767 0.4263 448 -0.11851 0.0120 449 0.05358 0.2572 449 -0.00928 0.8443 450 SEX -0.03950 0.4005 455 0.26188 0.0001 449 1.00000 0.0000 455 -0.00669 0.8869 455 0.17316 0.0002 455 0.05606 0.2327 455 0.00135 0.9771 455 -0.02483 0.5973 455 0.08162 0.0834 451 0.00425 0.9281 454 -0.25003 0.0001 455 0.22558 0.0001 455 0.02142 0.6486 455 RACE 0.02745 0.5592 455 0.09286 0.0493 449 -0.00669 0.8869 455 1.00000 0.0000 455 O.10893 0.0201 455 0.12071 0.0100 455 -0.01732 0.7125 455 -0.05736 0.2220 455 0.02171 O.G457 451 -0.06938 0.1399 454 0.05455 0.2456 455 -0.03723 0.4282 455 0.06638 O.1575 455 AGE 0.02503 0.5944 455 O.56473 0.0001 449 O.17316 0.0002 455 0.10893 0.0201 455 1.00000 0.0000 455 -0.03738 0.4264 455 -0.02588 0.5819 455 -0.07036 O.1340 455 0.01744 0.7118 451 -0.02028 0.6666 454 -0.00876 0.8522 455 0.02781 O.S541 455 -0.02984 0.5255 455 MARITAL -0.05475 0.2438 455 0.20795 0.0001 449 0.05606 0.2327 455 O.12071 0.0100 455 -0.03738 0.4264 455 1.OOOOO O.OOOO 455 -O.08185 0.0811 455 -0.00071 0.9879 455 O.00351 0.9408 451 -0.01499 0.7500 454 -0.02195 0.6406 455 0.04455 0.3431 455 O.00665 0.8875 455 DADED 0.01819 0.6988 455 -O.08718 0.0649 449 0.00135 0.9771 455 -O.01732 0.7125 455 -0.02588 0.5819 455 -0.08185 0.0811 455 1.00000 0.0000 455 0.51322 0.0001 455 0.12713 0.0069 451 -0.18948 0.0001 454 0.02118 0.6522 455 -0.04735 0.3136 455 0.03424 0.4663 455 MOMED -0.03950 0.4006 455 -0.08800 0.0625 449 -0.02483 0.5973 455 -0.05736 0.2220 455 -0.07036 0.1340 455 -0.00071 0.9879 455 0.51322 0.0001 455 1.00000 0.0000 455 0.07954 0.0916 451 -O.13078 0.0053 454 0.04220 0.3691 455 O.06262 0.1824 455 -O.02419 0.6068 455 HOME 0.05288 0.2625 451 0.02193 0.6445 445 0.08162 0.0834 451 0.02171 0.6457 451 0.01744 0.7118 451 0.00351 0.9408 451 O.12713 0.0069 451 0.07954 0.0916 451 1.OOOOO 0.0000 451 0.07468 0.1136 450 O.04655 0.3239 451 -O.05075 0.2822 451 O.02999 0.5253 451 PLACE 0.03271 0.4869 454 0.03767 0.4263 448 0.00425 0.9281 454 -0.06938 0.1399 454 -0.02028 0.6666 454 -0.01499 0.7500 454 -O.18948 0.0001 454 -O.13078 0.0053 454 0.07468 0.1136 450 1.00000 0.0000 454 -0.02608 0.5794 454 -0.02254 0.6320 454 0.00056 0.9905 454 RSA 0.01882 0.6888 455 -O.11851 0.0120 449 -0.25003 0.0001 455 0.05455 0.2456 455 -0.00876 0.8522 455 -0.02195 0.6406 455 0.02118 0.6522 455 0.04220 0.3691 455 O.04655 0.3239 451 -0.02608 0.5794 454 1.00000 O.OOOO 455 0.14881 0.0015 455 -0.08813 0.0603 455 RSB -0.04991 0.2880 455 0.05358 0.2572 449 0.22558 0.0001 455 -0.03723 0.4282 455 0.02781 0.5541 455 0.04455 0.3431 455 -0.04735 0.3136 455 0.06262 0.1824 455 -0.05075 0.2822 451 -0.02254 0.6320 454 0.14881 0.0015 455 1.00000 O.OOOO 455 -0.05203 0.2680 455 STASS -0-00895 0.8489 456 -0.00928 0.8443 450 0.02142 0.6486 455 0.06638 0.1575 455 -0.02984 0.5255 455 0.00665 0.8875 455 0.03424 0.4663 455 -0.02419 0.6068 455 0.02999 0.5253 451 O.00056 0.9905 454 -O.08813 0.0603 455 -0.05203 0.2680 455 1 OOOOO O.OOOO 456 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS ID GRADE SEX RACE AGE MARITAL DADED MOMED HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS STAST -0.01582 0.7362 456 -0.06141 0.1935 450 -0.00785 0.8674 455 0.09577 0.0412 455 -0.00644 0.8911 455 0.03448 0.4631 455 -0.01173 0.8029 455 -O.02646 0.5735 455 0.01634 0.7292 451 O.00307 0.9481 454 -0.07430 0.1135 455 0.05244 0.2643 455 0.42130 0.0001 456 AXOUT 0.04060 0.3870 456 -0.01016 0.8298 450 0.09138 0.0514 455 0.05505 0.2412 455 0.06185 0.1878 455 0.05385 0.2517 455 0.03287 0.4843 455 -0.00914 0.8459 455 -0.08589 0.0684 451 0.00S40 0.9086 454 -0.10562 0.0243 455 O.21757 0.0001 455 O.25246 0.0001 456 AXIN -0.03488 0.4574 456 -O.15371 0.0011 450 -0.01333 0.7767 455 0.03651 0.4372 455 -O.07188 0.1257 455 -0.02007 0.6693 455 -0.00998 0.8319 455 0.00608 0.8970 455 0.02156 0.6479 451 -0.01431 0.7611 454 -O.13876 0.0030 455 -0.15521 0.0009 455 0.27778 0.0001 456 AXCON 0.00224 0.9620 456 0.00425 0.9284 450 0.01999 0.6706 455 -0.07939 0.0908 455 0.00133 0.9775 455 -O.09185 0.0502 455 -O.06274 0.1816 455 0.00121 0.9794 455 0.03683 0.4353 4SI 0.03608 0.4431 454 0.23871 0.0001 455 -O.00577 0.9024 455 -O.19823 0.0001 456 AXEX 0.00012 0.9980 456 -0.07664 0.1045 450 0.02209 0.6384 455 0.08140 0.0828 455 -0.00729 0.8767 455 O.06164 0.1894 455 0.04215 0.3697 455 -0.00172 0.9707 455 -0.04563 0.3337 451 -0.02305 0.6242 454 -0.23263 0.0001 455 0.02427 0.6056 455 0.33708 0.0001 456 BDI -0.01362 0.7717 456 -O.07903 0.0941 450 -0.14173 0.0024 455 0.10986 0.0191 455 -0.03129 0.5056 455 -0.00212 0.9640 455 -0.03834 0.4146 455 -0.05229 0.2657 455 -O.10519 0.0255 451 -O.04559 0.3324 454 -0.08105 0.0842 455 -0.21160 0.0001 455 0.30708 0.0001 456 DENIAL -0.04812 0.3053 456 0.03689 0.4350 450 0.01585 0.7359 455 0.14645 0.0017 455 -0.07346 0.1177 455 0.00129 0.9782 455 -0.06670 0.1555 455 -0.06583 0.1609 455 0.00330 0.9442 451 0.01992 0.6721 454 0.07504 0.1099 455 0.00617 0.8956 455 -O.11329 0.0155 456 INFREQ -0.05837 0.2134 456 -0.00829 0.8608 450 0.20554 0.0001 455 0.13239 0.0047 455 0.00408 0.9309 455 -0.00941 0.8413 455 0.04513 0.3368 455 0.03348 0.4762 455 -0.01085 0.8183 451 -O.06088 O.1954 454 -0.29667 0.0001 455 0.10770 0.0216 455 0.22804 0.0001 456 IMPRESS -0.00153 0.9740 456 0.10469 0.0264 450 0.18047 0.0001 455 0.02569 0.5847 455 0.00806 0.8639 455 0.03608 0.4427 455 -0.02834 0.5465 455 -0.02681 0.5683 455 0.02953 0.5316 451 -0.04611 0.3270 454 0.12597 0.0071 455 0.04016 0.3927 455 -0.20265 0.0001 456 AGGRESS 0.00681 0.8846 456 0.01970 0.6768 450 0.26769 0.0001 455 0.02109 0.6537 455 0.04442 0.3445 455 0.04519 0.3362 455 0.01964 0.6760 455 0.00582 0.9015 455 0.04372 0.3543 451 -0.05095 0.2786 454 -0.42959 0.0001 455 0.15491 0.0009 455 0.21479 0.0001 456 HOSTILST -0.00315 0.9466 456 0.04742 0.3155 450 0.32356 0.0001 455 0.04367 0.3526 455 0.09076 0.0530 455 0.03153 0.5022 455 0.02202 0.6395 455 -0.00289 0.9510 455 0.00996 0.8323 451 -0.03003 0.5233 454 -0.35242 0.0001 455 0.21475 0.0001 455 0.16697 0.0003 456 ANGEREX 0.05025 G.2843 456 -0.05140 0.2765 450 O.08333 0.0756 455 0.07446 O.1127 455 0.04870 0.2999 455 0.05733 0.2223 455 0.01699 0.7178 455 -0.03204 0.4955 455 -O.01896 0.6880 451 -0.01489 0.7517 454 -0.10522 0.0248 455 0.22734 0.0001 455 O.33795 0.0001 456 OISREGD -0.08562 0.0677 456 O.10787 0.0221 450 0.24688 0.0001 455 0.15155 0.0012 455 0.06490 O.1669 455 0.06061 0.1969 455 -0.06801 0.1475 455 -0.00194 0.9670 455 -0.04885 0.3006 451 -0.07427 0.1140 454 -0.36853 0.0001 455 0.19551 0.0001 455 0.15198 0.0011 456 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO:RHO= ID GRADE SEX RACE AGE MARITAL DAOED HOMED VERBALAG 0.02813 0.5490 456 PHYSAGG -0.02392 0.6104 456 0.4187 450 0.0762 450 0.0001 455 0.0001 455 PASSIVAG 0.00949 -O.08608 -< 0.2234 0.0005 0.7839 0.9304 0.8857 0.5555 455 455 455 455 455 455 0.8398 456 0.0681 450 ASSERT -0.00160 0.9728 456 0.11221 0.0173 450 SELFCONF Ô.04930 0.2935 456 0. 11761 0.012S 450 INITASS -0.02738 0.5598 456 0.08995 O.OS66 450 OEFENASS 0.01735 0.7117 456 0.17000 0.0003 450 FRANK -0.02039 0.6641 456 0.09347 0.0475 450 PRAISE 0.05178 0.2698 456 0.07032 O.1364 450 REOESTHE 0.04498 0.3378 456 0.08829 0.0613 450 REFUSDEM 0.00631 0.8931 456 0.12612 0.0074 450 CQNFLAVO 0.00288 0.9511 456 -0.10541 0.0253 450 DEPENDCY 0.03158 0.5012 456 -0.15832 0.0008 450 0.0001 455 0.1845 455 0.0001 455 0.0001 455 0.3663 455 0.1932 455 0.2720 455 0.1185 455 0.0001 455 0.0001 455 0.02435 0.05280 0.6045 0.2610 455 455 0.06544 0.09015 0.1634 0.0546 455 455 0. 16170 0.01289 -0.13098 0. 10663 0.0051 0.0229 455 455 -0.09024 0.06228 0.0544 0.1848 455 455 -0.16451 0.06410 0.0004 0.1723 455 455 -O.10872 0.10905 0.0204 0.0200 455 455 -0.05943 0.01807 0.2057 0.7006 455 455 -0.08076 0.02964 0.0853 0.5283 455 455 -0.09451 0.07221 0.0439 0.1240 455 455 -O.16247 0.07873 0.0005 0.0935 455 455 O.08452 -0.07510 0.0717 0.1097 455 455 0.14967 0.00886 0.0014 0.8505 455 455 O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS HOME PLACE RSA RSB 0.2840 455 0.3047 455 0.3333 455 0.4065 455 0.8127 455 0.5709 455 0.8059 455 0.8337 455 0.7070 455 0.4674 455 0.6104 455 0.6043 455 0.6912 455 0.2108 455 0.4753 455 0.8436 455 0.4713 455 0.9210 455 0.3830 455 0.5760 455 0.6689 4SS 0.7643 455 3.00301 0.08290 0.9489 0.0773 455 455 0.2259 455 0.3105 455 0.9544 455 0.5892 455 0.3356 455 0.0982 455 0.0404 455 0.4624 455 0.6270 455 0.7966 455 -0.00992 -0.05236 -0.29250 0.26566 0.8336 0.2656 0.0001 0.0001 4SI 454 455 455 0.04562 0.00238 -0.23930 O.26438 0.3337 0.9596 0.0001 0.0001 451 454 455 455 0.01149 0.030S5 -O.13240 -O.13299 0.8078 0.5162 0.0047 0.0045 451 454 455 455 -0.08162 -0.0709S -0.01440 O.62667 0.0834 0.1312 0.7593 0.0001 4SI 454 455 455 -0.07426 -0.08479 O.10124 O.38942 0.1153 0.0711 0.0308 0.0001 451 454 455 455 -0.07732 -0.01707 0.04285 O.63452 0.1010 0.7169 0.3618 0.0001 4SI 454 455 455 -0.06139 -0.07183 -O.02916 0.52237 0.1932 0.1265 0.5350 0.0001 451 454 455 455 -0.01323 -0.05522 0.04010 O.45008 0.7794 0.2403 0.3935 0.0001 451 454 455 455 -O.04835 -O.10893 O.21715 O.25468 0.3055 0.0203 0.0001 0.0001 451 454 455 455 -0.04224 -0.04722 O.04569 O.28399 0.3708 0.3155 0.3308 0.0001 451 454 - 455 455 -0.00608 -0.03708 O.02526 O.31132 0.8976 0.4306 0.5909 0.0001 451 454 455 455 0.2058 455 0.5945 455 0.05014 0.04932 0.2880 0.2943 451 454 0.11249 0.01627 0.0169 0.7295 451 454 0.07995 -0.52046 0.0885 0.0001 455 455 0.20080 -0.34976 0.0001 0.0001 455 455 STASS O.19619 0.0001 456 0.26019 0.0001 456 O.32452 0.0001 456 -O.04700 0.3166 456 -O.23517 0.0001 456 -O.14232 0.0023 456 -O.20314 0.0001 456 -O.05158 0.2717 456 -0.16431 0.0004 456 -O.15247 0.0011 456 -O.15935 0.0006 456 0.01681 0.7203 456 0.21166 0.0001 456 M N) w SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS ID GRADE SEX RACE AGE MARITAL DAOEO MOMED HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS SHY -0.02993 0.5239 456 0.00160 0.9730 450 0.00074 0.9875 455 0.14778 0.0016 455 -0.03012 0.5216 455 0.05046 0.2828 455 -0.03962 0.3991 455 -O.04135 0.3789 455 O.06264 0.1842 451 -0.05598 0.2339 454 -O.23353 0.0001 455 -O.43537 0.0001 455 O.19896 0.0001 456 ASSAULT -O.03224 0.4922 456 O.05464 0.2474 450 0.36143 0.0001 455 0.06902 0.1416 455 0.04201 0.3713 455 o.oeaso 0.1736 455 -0.03937 0.4021 455 0.00938 0.8418 455 0.05178 0.2725 451 -0.04774 0.3101 454 -O.17935 0.0001 455 0.24609 0.0001 455 0.20502 0.0001 456 INDIRHOS -0.00394 0.9332 456 -0.11129 0.0182 450 -0.05779 0.2186 455 -0.01086 0.8173 455 0.00332 0.9437 455 0.01268 0.7874 455 0.07333 0.1183 455 -0.03839 0.4140 455 -0.02197 0.6417 451 -0.00661 0.8882 454 O.03174 0.4994 455 0.01338 0.7760 455 O.23615 0.0001 456 IRRITBLE 0.02438 0.6035 456 -O.11178 0.0177 450 -O.09537 0.0420 455 0.02769 0.5558 455 0.03683 0.4332 455 0.01195 0.7993 455 0.01248 0.7906 455 -0.01447 0.7582 455 0.01172 0.8040 451 -0.01968 0.6758 454 -0.12527 0.0075 455 -O.09191 0.0501 455 0.33302 0.0001 456 NEGATIVE -0.01283 0.7847 456 0.00955 0.8399 450 0.07374 O.1163 455 0.14335 0.0022 455 0.08243 0.0790 455 0.01908 0.6848 455 -0.02035 0.6651 455 -0.04127 0.3798 455 -0.00369 0.9378 451 -0.09496 0.0431 454 -0.19764 0.0001 455 0.07607 0.1051 455 0.19001 0.0001 456 RESENT -0.06791 0.1477 456 -0.07680 O.1037 450 -0.01028 0.8268 455 0.00433 0.9266 455 0.01778 0.7053 455 -0.06349 0.1764 455 -0.05397 0.2506 455 -0.02050 0.6627 455 0.00344 0.9420 451 0.01267 0.7878 454 -O.16917 0.0003 455 -0.12732 0.0065 455 0.33155 0.0001 456 SUSPICIN -0.03035 0.5180 456 -0.13166 0.0052 450 -O.13136 0.0050 455 O.11143 0.0174 455 -0.05788 0.2178 455 -O.05911 0.2082 455 -0.03555 0.4494 455 0.03741 0.4260 455 -0.01512 0.7488 451 -0.04313 0.3592 454 -0.07531 0.1087 455 -0.05710 0.2242 455 0.34150 0.0001 456 VERBLHOS 0.02223 0.6358 456 0.07340 0.1200 450 0.20368 0.0001 455 0.02151 0.6473 455 0.04745 0.3125 455 0.04679 0.3193 455 0.00682 0.8847 455 0.02148 0.6476 455 0.00793 0.8666 451 -0.02845 0.5454 454 -0.13603 0.0036 455 0.41461 0.0001 455 0.10667 0.0227 456 GUILT -0.02004 0.6696 456 -O.23345 0.0001 450 -O.14317 0.0022 455 0.09228 0.0492 455 -O.09581 0.0411 455 0.00261 0.9558 455 -0.00986 0.8339 455 -0.06318 0.1785 455 0.03846 0.4152 451 O.08253 0.0790 454 0.11032 0.0186 455 -O.19619 0.0001 455 O.20212 0.0001 456 TOTLHOST -0.02125 0.6508 456 -0.09921 0.0354 450 0.05146 0.2733 455 0.08212 0.0801 455 0.01206 0.7975 455 0.00945 0.8406 455 -0.01305 0.7813 455 -0.01586 0.7358 455 0.01699 0.7190 451 -0.02393 0.6111 454 -0.14304 0.0022 455 0.07313 0.1193 455 0.37827 0.0001 456 DIM1 -0.01546 0.7419 456 0.06307 0.1817 450 0.36756 0.0001 455 0.06524 0. 1648 455 0.07776 0.0976 455 0.05599 0.2332 455 -0.00303 0.9485 455 -0.00066 0.9887 455 O.02181 0.6441 451 -0.04817 0.3058 454 -0.38324 0.0001 455 0.25803 0.0001 455 0.23459 0.0001 456 DIM2 0.01543 0.7425 456 -0.03742 0.4284 450 0.05088 0.2788 455 0.08305 0-0768 455 0.02703 0.5652 455 0.06559 O.1625 455 0.02923 0.5340 455 -0.01957 0.6772 455 -0.02505 0.5957 451 -0.01441 0.7595 454 -0.14418 0.0020 455 0.17135 0.0002 455 0.36260 0.0001 456 DIM3 -0.01930 0.6811 456 -0.12432 0.0083 450 -0.05299 0.2593 455 0.11169 0.0172 455 -0.01494 0.7506 455 -O.00508 0.9139 455 -0.01352 0.7736 455 -0.00034 0.9943 455 0.01482 0.7536 451 O.00078 0.9868 454 -0.14498 0.0019 455 -O.08819 0.0602 455 0.44755 0.0001 456 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS ID GRADE SEX RACE AGE MARITAL DADED MOMED HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS FACTOR1 -0.02519 0.5916 456 0.12296 0.0090 450 0.43862 0.0001 455 0.05830 0.2146 455 0.09101 0.0524 455 0.05081 0.2794 455 -0.01949 0.6784 455 0.00555 0.9061 455 0.02540 0.5905 451 -0.05460 0.2456 454 -0.39954 0.0001 455 0.29960 0.0001 455 O.08957 0.0560 456 FACT0R2 0.05788 0.2174 456 -0.03469 0.4630 450 -0.00381 0.9355 455 O.02238 0.6340 455 O.02802 0.5S10 455 0.07258 0.1221 455 0.05831 0.2144 455 -0.02187 0.6417 455 -0.03803 0.4205 451 0.00301 0.9490 454 0.02096 0.6557 455 0.21214 0.0001 455 0.25143 0.0001 456 FACT0R3 -0.04285 0.3613 456 -0.16509 0.0004 450 -0.19473 0.0001 455 0.09119 0.0519 455 -0.03824 0.4159 455 -0.06046 0.1980 455 -0.03203 0.4955 455 0.00346 0.9413 455 0.01006 0.8313 451 -0.00481 0.9186 454 -O.10779 0.0215 455 -O.28711 0.0001 455 O.36853 0.0001 456 STAST AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX GDI DENIAL INFREO IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGD ID -0.01582 0.7362 456 0.04060 0.3870 456 -0.03488 0.4574 456 0.00224 0.9620 456 0.00012 0.9980 456 -0.01362 0.7717 456 -0.04812 0.3053 456 -O.OS837 0.2134 456 -0.00153 0.9740 456 0.00681 0.8846 456 -0.0031S 0.9466 456 0.05025 0.2843 456 -0.08562 0.0677 456 GRADE -0.06141 0.1935 450 -0.01016 0.8298 450 -0.15371 0.0011 450 0.00425 0.9284 450 -O.07664 0.1045 450 -0.07903 0.0941 450 0.03689 0.4350 450 -0.00829 0.8608 450 0.10469 0.0264 450 0.01970 0.6768 450 0.04742 0.3155 450 -O.05140 0.2765 450 O.10787 0.0221 450 SEX -0.00785 0.8674 455 0.09138 0.0514 455 -0.01333 0.7767 455 0.01999 0.6706 455 0.02209 0.6384 455 -O.14173 0.0024 455 O.01585 0.7359 455 0.20554 0.0001 455 O.18047 0.0001 455 0.26769 0.0001 455 0.32356 0.0001 455 O.08339 0.0756 455 0.24688 0.0001 455 RACE 0.09577 0.0412 455 0.05505 0.2412 455 0.03651 0.4372 455 -O.07939 0.0908 455 0.08140 0.0828 455 0.10986 0.0191 455 O.14645 0.0017 455 0.13239 0.0047 455 0.02S69 0.5847 455 0.02109 0.6537 455 0.04367 0.3526 455 O.07446 0.1127 455 0.15155 0-0012 455 AGE MARITAL DADEO MOWED HOME PLACE -0.00644 0.06185 0.8911 0.1878 455 455 0.03448 0.05385 0.4631 0.2517 455 455 -0.01173 0.03287 0.8029 0.4843 455 455 -0.02646 -0.00914 0.5735 0.8459 455 455 0.01634 -0.08589 0.7292 0.0684 451 451 0.00307 0.00540 0.9481 0.9086 454 454 -0.07188 O.1257 455 0.6693 455 0.8319 455 0.00608 0.8970 455 0.02156 0.6479 451 0.7S11 454 0.00133 -0.00729 -O.03129 -0.07346 0.00408 0.9775 0.8767 0.5056 0.1177 0.9309 455 455 455 455 455 0.06164 -0.00212 0.0502 455 0.1816 455 0.1894 455 0.9640 455 0.00129 -0.00941 0.9782 0.8413 455 455 0.00806 0.8639 455 0.03608 0.4427 455 0.04215 -0.03834 -0.06670 0.04513 -0.02834 .3697 455 0.4146 455 0.1555 455 O.3368 455 .5465 455 0.00121 -0.00172 -0.05229 -0.06583 0.9794 455 0.9707 455 0.2657 455 . 1609 455 0.03348 -0.02681 0.4762 0.5683 455 455 0.04442 0.3445 455 0.04519 0.3362 455 0.01964 0.6760 455 0.9015 455 0.09076 O.04870 0.06490 0.0530 0.2999 0.1669 455 455 455 0.03153 0.05733 0.06061 0.5022 0.2223 0.1969 455 455 455 0.02202 0.01699 -O.06801 0.639S 0.7178 0.1475 455 455 455 -0.00289 -0.03204 -0.00194 0.9510 0.4955 0.9670 455 455 455 0.03683 -0.04563 -0.10519 0.4353 O.3337 0.0255 451 451 451 0.00330 -0.01085 0.02953 0.04372 0.00996 -0.01896 -O.04885 0.9442 0.8183 O.S316 0.3543 0.8329 0.6880 0.3006 451 451 451 451 451 451 4SI 0.03608 0.4431 454 -0.02305 O.G242 454 -0.04559 O.3324 454 0.01992 -0.06088 0.6721 O.1954 454 454 -0.04611 -0.05095 0.3270 0.2786 454 454 -0.03003 -0.01489 -0.07427 0.5233 0.7517 0.1140 454 454 454 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS RSA RSB STASS STAST AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL STAST -0.07430 0.1135 455 0.05244 0.2643 455 0.42130 0.0001 456 1.00000 0.0000 456 O.61292 0.0001 456 O.33924 0.0001 456 -0.54865 0.0001 456 0.70086 0.0001 456 O.43584 0.0001 456 -G.34907 0.0001 456 AXOUT -O.10562 0.0243 455 AXIN -O.13876 0.0030 455 AXCON O.23871 0.0001 455 O.21757 -0.15521 -O.00577 0.9024 455 -O.19823 0.0001 456 -0.54865 0.0001 456 -0.54877 0.0001 456 -O.10437 0.0258 456 1.00000 O.OOOO 456 -O.80268 0.0001 456 -0.24853 0.0001 456 0.30094 0.0001 456 0.0001 0.0009 455 455 0.25246 0.27778 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 O.61292 O.33924 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 1.00000 0.12248 0.0000 0.0088 456 456 O.12248 1 OOOOO 0.0088 O.OOOO 456 456 -0.54877 -0.10437 0.0001 0.0258 456 456 O.76597 0.56209 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 O.20760 O.40508 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 -0.27330 -0.19080 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 AXEX BDI -0.23263 -0.08105 0.0001 0.0842 455 455 0.02427 -0.21160 0.6056 0.0001 455 455 0.33708 0.30708 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.70086 0.43584 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.76597 0.20760 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 O.56209 0.40508 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 -0.80268 -0.24853 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 1 OOOOO 0.40239 0.0000 0.0001 456 456 0.40239 1.00000 0.0001 O.OOOO 456 456 -0.35996 -0.05447 0.0001 0.2457 456 456 DENIAL INFREO IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX OISREGO 0.07504 -O.29667 0.1099 0.0001 455 455 0.00617 0.10770 0.8956 0.0216 455 455 -O.11329 0.22804 0.0155 0.0001 456 456 -0.34907 0.38434 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 -0.27330 0.37374 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 -O.19080 0.16666 0.0001 0.0004 456 456 0.30094 -0.27945 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 -0.35996 0.38024 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 -0.05447 0.24230 0.2457 0.0001 456 456 1.00000 -0.06649 O.OOOO 0.1564 456 456 O.12597 0.0071 455 0.04016 0.3927 455 -0.20265 0.0001 456 -0.47517 0.0001 456 -0.36961 0.0001 456 -0.28690 0.0001 456 0.42417 0.0001 456 -0.50985 0.0001 456 -0.30636 0.0001 456 0.39800 0.0001 456 -O.42959 0.0001 455 -O.35242 0.0001 455 -0.10522 0.0248 455 -O.36853 0.0001 455 O.15491 0.0009 455 0.21475 0.0001 455 0.22734 0.0001 455 0.19551 0.0001 455 0.21479 0.0001 456 0.16697 0.0003 456 0.33795 0.0001 456 0.15198 0.0011 456 0.47611 0.0001 456 0.42918 0.0001 456 0.65227 0.0001 456 0.37384 0.0001 456 0.46842 0.0001 456 0.45601 0.0001 456 0.69445 0.0001 456 0.39665 0.0001 456 O.23695 0.0001 456 O.19495 0.0001 456 0.17174 0.0002 456 0.19845 0.0001 456 -0.37205 0.0001 456 -0.34465 0.0001 456 -0.58922 0.0001 456 -0.27181 0.0001 456 0.50075 0.46203 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.16466 0.08861 0.0004 0.0587 456 456 -0.41105 -O.36428 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.68025 0.0001 456 O.30712 0.0001 456 -0.31790 0.0001 456 0.40042 0.0001 456 O.13096 0.0051 456 -0.15457 0.0009 456 lo to o\ INFREQ 0.38434 O.37374 0.16666 -0.27945 0.38024 0.24230 -0-06649 1.OOOOO -O.24193 O.55151 O.45253 0.40287 0.49007 0.0001 0.0001 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.1564 O.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 IMPRESS -O.47517 -0.36961 -0.28890 0.42417 -O.50985 -O.30636 0.39800 -O.24193 1.OOOOO -O.39765 -0.33290 -0.50386 -O.18827 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 AGGRESS 0.47611 0.0001 456 0.46842 0.23695 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 -0.37205 0.50075 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.16466 -0.41105 0.000.4 0.0001 456 456 0.55151 -O.39765 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 1.00000 O.87601 0.0000 0.0001 456 456 0.58876 0.64771 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 5A;» PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS STAST AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREQ IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST HOSTILST 0.42918 O.45601 O.19495 -O.34465 0.46203 0.08861 -O.36428 O.45253 -O.33290 0.87601 1.00000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0587 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 ANGEREX O.65227 0.69445 0.17174 -O.58922 O.68025 O.30712 -0.31790 0.40287 -0.50386 0.58876 0.51871 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 DISREGD O.37384 O.39665 O.19845 -O.27181 0.40042 0.13096 -0.15457 0.49007 -0.18827 0.64771 0.75573 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0051 0.0009 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 3.42912 0.73063 0.70488 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 3.17641 0.59667 0.62476 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 D.49390 0.47442 O.42174 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 VERBALAG O.44944 0.0001 456 0.53331 0.0001 456 O.10947 0.0194 456 -0.41616 0.0001 456 0.49318 0.0001 456 0.09242 0.0486 456 -0.31236 0.0001 456 0.58205 0.0001 456 PHYSAGG 0.36231 0.0001 456 0.43216 0.0001 456 0.13006 0.0054 456 -0.30693 0.0001 456 0.40265 0.0001 456 0.12510 0.0075 456 -0.15544 0.0009 456 0.47115 0.0001 456 PASSIVAG 0.55904 0.0001 456 0.40373 0.0001 456 0.40662 0.0001 456 -0.38726 0.0001 456 0.55864 0.0001 456 0.50278 0.0001 456 -0.26849 0.0001 456 0.40682 0.0001 456 ASSERT O.02708 0.5641 456 0.21890 0.0001 456 -0.21872 0.0001 456 -0.06455 0.1688 456 0.02673 0.5692 456 -0.21830 0.0001 456 -O.11334 0.0155 456 O.10652 0.0229 456 SELFCONF -0.29312 0.0001 456 -0.03537 0.4512 456 -0.39667 0.0001 456 0.08656 0.0648 456 -0.24098 0.0001 456 -0.44280 0.0001 456 0.04225 0.3680 456 -O.16802 0.0003 456 INITASS -0.15092 0.0012 456 0.05124 0.2749 456 -0.25113 0.0001 456 0.08735 0.0624 456 -0.13842 0.0031 456 -0.26989 0.0001 456 -0.00303 0.9486 456 -0.03674 0.4338 456 DEFENASS -O.06902 0.1411 456 O. 14732 0.0016 456 -O.32620 0.0001 456 -0.03355 0.4749 456 -0.06875 O.1427 456 -0.31350 0.0001 456 -O.04607 0.3263 456 -0.02433 0.6043 456 FRANK 0.02824 0.29342 -0.36730 -0.15288 0.03675 -0.19762 -0.01152 0.06278 0.5475 0.0001 0.0001 0.0011 0.4337 0.0001 0.8061 0.1808 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 PRAISE -0.26856 -0.06887 -0.31245 O.10682 -O.22738 -0.33067 0.01306 -O.22898 • 0.0001 0.1420 0.0001 0.0225 0.0001 0.0001 0.7809 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 REQESTHE -O.11923 0.08827 -0.33480 -0.02582 -0.10170 -O.28497 -0.04497 -0.14495 0.0108 0.0596 0.0001 0.5824 0.0299 0.0001 0.3380 0.0019 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 0.0061 0.9810 0.0507 456 456 456 O.06892 0.06646 O.16613 0.1417 0.1565 0.0004 456 456 456 0.1165 0.1177 0.0063 456 456 456 0.26311 -0.18415 -0.05464 0.0001 0.0001 0.2442 456 456 456 0.4085 0.8226 0.1182 456 456 456 0.4146 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 K 456 456 456 0.0001 0.0149 0.6150 456 456 456 ANGEREX DISREGD 0.51871 0.75573 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 1.00000 0.38928 O.OOOO 0.0001 456 456 0.38928 1.00000 0.0001 0.0000 456 456 O.62096 O.52082 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 O.56864 0.55137 .0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.51731 O.39016 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 O.22084 O.22466 456 456 -0.10618 O.01111 0.0233 0.8129 456 456 O.05132 0.05646 0.2741 0.2289 456 456 0.07268 0.15622 0.1212 0.0008 456 456 O.21748 0.11755 0.0001 0.0120 456 456 -0.11820 -0.06864 0.0115 0.1434 456 456 0.01279 0.00572 0.7853 0.9031 456 456 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS STAST AXOUT AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREO IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGO REFUSDEM -O.16872 0.0003 456 O.00249 0.9578 456 -O.31041 0.0001 456 O.00608 0.8970 456 -O.14357 0.0021 456 -0.28683 0.0001 456 -0.02902 0.5365 456 -0.09361 0.0457 456 0.00843 0.8575 456 0.00540 0.9084 456 0.03356 0.4747 456 -0.00138 0.9765 456 -0.00075 0.9873 456 CONFLAVD -0.14613 0.0018 456 -0.41885 0.0001 456 0.27245 0.0001 456 0.24661 0.0001 456 -0.18206 0.0001 456 0.16128 0.0005 456 0.10668 0.0227 456 -0.15071 0.0012 456 0.15260 0.0011 456 -0.26847 0.0001 456 -O.30603 0.0001 456 -0.42036 0.0001 456 -0.24654 0.0001 456 OEPENOCV 0.28953 0.0001 456 O.12958 0.0056 456 0.23419 0.0001 456 -0.17471 0.0002 456 0.25291 0.0001 456 0.33156 0.0001 456 -O.17503 0.0002 456 0.08357 0.0746 456 -0.21943 0.0001 456 0.04169 0.3745 456 0.03840 0.4134 456 0.13087 0.0051 456 0.01034 0.8258 456 SHY O.21474 0.0001 456 0.04000 0.3941 456 O.36733 0.0001 456 -O.11011 0.0187 456 O.24189 0.0001 456 0.32921 0.0001 456 0.00997 0.8319 456 0.18521 0.0001 456 -0.16424 0.0004 456 0.14851 0.0015 456 0.04179 0.3733 456 0.07641 0.1032 456 O.07961 0.0895 456 ASSAULT 0.43335 0.0001 456 0.46795 0.0001 456 0.10399 0.0264 456 -0.33471 0.0001 456 0.42044 0.0001 456 0.09653 0.0394 456 -0.16645 0.0004 456 0.38691 0.0001 456 -0.15999 0.0006 456 O.52568 0.0001 456 O.59125 0.0001 456 0.50927 0.0001 456 O.46983 0.0001 456 INOIRHOS 0.43104 0.0001 456 0.39415 0.0001 456 0.27036 0.0001 456 -0.37690 0.0001 456 0.48708 0.0001 456 0.20603 0.0001 456 -0.34690 0.0001 456 0.20305 0.0001 456 -0.41364 0.0001 456 0.32468 0.0001 456 O.31492 0.0001 456 0.53382 0.0001 456 0.15258 0-0011 456 IRRITBLE 0.63682 0.0001 456 0.45164 0.0001 456 0.43821 0.0001 456 -0.47207 0.0001 456 0.63766 0.0001 456 0.45813 0.0001 456 -0.41792 0.0001 456 0.26483 0.0001 456 -0.53591 0.0001 456 0.43932 0.0001 456 O.39857 0.0001 456 0.54439 0.0001 456 0.31173 0.0001 456 NEGATIVE 0.34614 0.0001 456 0.29681 0.0001 456 0.20826 0.0001 456 -0.21939 0.0001 456 O.33523 0.0001 456 0.19877 0.0001 456 -0.16946 0.0003 456 0.37326 0.0001 456 -0.31099 0.0001 456 0.40821 0.0001 456 O.37769 0.0001 456 0.30699 0.0001 456 O.38713 0.0001 456 RESENT 0.52520 0.0001 456 0.35107 0.0001 456 0.39600 0.0001 456 -O.35940 0.0001 456 0.51695 0.0001 456 0.43046 0.0001 456 -O.26936 0.0001 456 O.34192 0.0001 456 -0.40048 0.0001 456 0.38015 0.0001 456 O.32756 0.0001 456 O.38773 0.0001 456 O.31307 0-0001 456 SUSPICIN 0.48540 0.0001 456 0.33576 0.0001 456 O.36750 0.0001 456 -0.29061 0.0001 456 0.46151 0.0001 456 O.42185 0.0001 456 -O.27557 0.0001 456 0.29788 0.0001 456 -O.43214 0.0001 456 0.40235 0.0001 456 O.32444 0.0001 456 0.40985 0.0001 456 0-30880 0-0001 456 VERBLHOS O.41691 0.0001 456 0.59002 0.0001 456 -0.04374 0.3514 456 -O.39833 0.0001 456 0.43805 0.0001 456 0.07297 0.1197 456 -0.27005 0.0001 - 456 O.34548 0.0001 456 -0.29351 0.0001 456 0.46934 0.0001 456 0.49098 0.0001 456 0.59896 0-0001 456 0-40368 0-0001 456 GUILT 0.32405 0.0001 456 O.13920 0.0029 456 0.34511 0.0001 456 -O.I1907 0.0109 456 0.27843 0.0001 456 0.41606 0.0001 456 -0.14880 0.0014 456 0.10781 0-0213 456 -0.23892 0.0001 456 0.03919 0.4037 456 -0.02501 0.5943 456 0.18251 0.0001 456 -0-03633 0.4390 456 to to 00 TOTLHOST O.71277 0.0001 456 0.61103 0.39548 -O.51588 0.70855 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 .456 456 456 456 O.44558 -O.41002 0.45174 -0.54156 0.59152 0.55929 0.69868 0-45630 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 SAS DIM1 OIM2 D1M3 FACTOR1 FACTORS FACTORS ID GRADE SEX RACE AGE MARITAL DADED STAST AXOUT O.50615 0.54624 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.85892 0.82381 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.83695 0.52812 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.23650 0.33719 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.64307 0.78358 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.54023 0.18890 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 VERBALAG PHYSAGG 0.02813 -0.02392 0.5490 0.6104 456 456 0.03821 0.08366 0.4187 0.0762 450 450 O.22718 0.43807 0.0001 0.0001 455 455 0.02435 0.06544 0.6045 0.1634 455 455 O.05280 0.09015 0.2610 0.0546 455 455 0.05034 0.04822 0.2840 0.3047 455 455 0.04546 -0.03901 0.3333 0.4065 455 455 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS AXIN AXCON AXEX BDI DENIAL INFREQ IMPRE! 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0030 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.23071 -0.77010 0.85645 0.35688 -0.39419 O.43644 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 0.0001 456 O.1867 456 0.9465 456 0.0001 456 0.8398 456 0.0681 450 0.2234 455 0.0005 455 0.7839 455 0.9304 455 0.8857 455 0.0001 456 0.0004 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.4353 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0011 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGO 0.91207 0.0001 456 0.94261 0.0001 456 0.63870 0.0001 456 O.78246 0.0001 456 O.58062 0.0001 456 O.54109 0.0001 456 0.87040 0.0001 456 0.43530 0.0001 456 0.53174 0.0001 456 O.46733 0.0001 456 0.61420 0.0001 456 0.42198 0.0001 456 O.84101 0.0001 456 0.91801 0.0001 456 0.39645 0.0001 456 O.80308 0.0001 456 0.27065 0.0001 456 O.22385 0.0001 456 0.80015 0.0001 456 0.08847 0.0591 456 0.32548 0.0001 456 0.23323 0.0001 456 0.28072 0.0001 456 0.26309 o.ooot 456 ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS DEFENASS 0.9728 456 0.0173 450 0.0001 455 0.0051 455 0.0229 455 0.8059 455 0.4713 455 0.2935 456 0.0125 450 0.1845 455 0.0544 455 O. 1848 455 0.8337 455 0.9210 455 0.5598 456 0.0566 450 0.0001 455 0.0004 455 O. 1723 455 0.7070 455 0.3830 455 0.7117 456 0.0003 450 0.0001 455 0.0204 455 0.0200 455 0.4674 455 0.9489 455 FRANK PRAISE REOESTHE REFUSOEM CONFLAVO OEPENDCY 0.02039 0.05178 0.04498 0.00631 0.00288 0.03158 0.6641 0.2698 0.3378 0.8931 0.9511 0.5012 456 456 456 456 456 456 0.09347 0.07032 0.08829 0.12612 -0.10541 -O.15832 0.047S 0.1364 0.0613 0.0074 0.0253 0.0008 450 450 4SO 4SO 450 450 0.04245 -0.06111 0.05160 0.07329 -O.21859 -0.20253 0.3663 0.1932 0.2720 0.1185 0.0001 0.0001 455 455 455 455 455 455 •0.05943 -0.08076 -0.09451 -O.16247 0.08452 0.14967 0.2057 0.0853 0.0439 0.0005 0.0717 0.0014 455 455 455 455 455 455 0.01807 0.02964 0.07221 0.07873 -0.07510 0.00886 0.7006 0.5283 O.1240 0.0935 O.1097 0.8505 455 455 455 455 455 455 0.02395 -0.02436 0.01867 -0.05878 -O.03355 0.00928 0.6104 0.6043 0.6912 0.2108 0.4753 0.8436 455 455 455 455 455 455 0.05688 0.04765 -0.00269 -0.02538 -0.04524 O.07763 0.2259 0.3105 0.9544 0.5892 0.3356 0.0982 455 455 455 455 455 455 to so SAS HOMED HOME PLACE PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO:RHO» VERBALAG PHYSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS DEFENASS FRANK 0.01114 -0.02664 0.02771 0.02628 0.02010 0.01409 O.08290 O.09611 0.8127 0.5709 0-5555 0.5760 0.6689 0.7643 0.0773 0.0404 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 455 -0.00992 0.04562- 0.01149 -0.08162 -0.07426 -0.07732 -0.06139 -0.01323 • 0.8336 0.3337 0.8078 0.0834 0.1153 O.1010 O.1932 0.7794 451 451 451 451 451 451 4SI 451 =0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS PRAISE REOESTHE REFUSDEM CONFLAVD DEPENOCY 0.03453 0.02284 O.01212 -0.05943 O.02502 0.4624 0.6270 0.7966 0.2058 0.5945 455 455 455 455 455 -0.04835 -0.04224 -0.00608 0.05014 0.11249 0.3055 0.3708 0.8976 0.2880 0.0169 451 451 451 4SI 4SI -0.05236 0.00238 0.03055 -0.07095 -0.08479 -0.01707 -0.07183 0.05522 -0.10893 -0.04722 -0.03708 0.04932 0.01627 0.2656 454 0.9596 454 0.5162 454 0.1312 454 0.0711 454 0.7169 454 O.1265 454 0.2403 454 0.0203 454 0.3155 454 0.4306 454 0.2943 454 0.7295 454 RSA -O.29250 0.0001 455 -0.23930 0.0001 455 -0.13240 0.0047 455 -0.01440 0.7593 455 0.10124 0.0308 455 0.04285 0.3618 455 -0.02916 0.5350 455 0.04010 0.3935 455 0.21715 0.0001 455 0.04569 0.3308 455 -0.02526 0.5909 455 0.07995 0.0885 455 0.20080 0.0001 455 RSB 0.26566 0.0001 455 0.26438 0.0001 455 -O.13299 0.0045 455 O.62667 0.0001 455 O.38942 0.0001 455 O.63452 0.0001 455 O.52237 0.0001 455 0.45008 0.0001 455 O.25468 0.0001 455 O.28399 0.0001 455 O.31132 0.0001 455 -0.52046 0.0001 455 -O.34976 0.0001 455 STASS 0.19619 0.0001 456 0.26019 0.0001 456 0.32452 0.0001 456 -0.04700 0.3166 456 -0.23517 0.0001 456 -0.14232 0.0023 456 -O.20314 0.0001 456 -O.05158 0.2717 456 -0.16431 0-0004 456 -0.15247 0.0011 456 -0.15935 0.0006 456 0.01681 0.7203 456 O.21166 0.0001 456 STAST 0.44944 0.0001 456 0.36231 0.0001 456 0.55904 0.0001 456 O.02708 0.5641 456 -0.29312 0.0001 456 -0.15092 0.0012 456 -0.06902 O.1411 456 0.02824 0.5475 456 -O.26856 0.0001 456 -O.I1923 0.0108 456 -0.16872 0.0003 456 -0.14613 0.0018 456 0.28953 0.0001 456 AXOUT 0.53331 0.0001 456 0.43216 0.0001 456 0.40373 0.0001 456 0.21890 0.0001 456 -O.03537 0.4512 456 0.05124 0.2749 456 0.14732 0.0016 456 0.29342 0.0001 456 -0.06887 0.1420 456 0.08827 O.OS96 456 0.00249 0.9578 456 -0.41885 0.0001 456 0.12958 0-00S6 456 AXIN O.10947 0.0194 456 0.13006 0.0054 456 0.40662 0.0001 456 -0.21872 0.0001 456 -O.39667 0.0001 456 -0.25113 0.0001 456 -0.32620 0.0001 456 -O.36730 0.0001 456 -0.31245 0.0001 456 -0.33480 0.0001 456 -0.31041 0.0001 456 0.27245 0.0001 456 0-23419 0.0001 456 AXCON -O.41616 0.0001 456 -O.30693 0.0001 456 -O.38726 0.0001 456 -O.06455 O.1688 456 O.08656 0.0648 456 0.08735 0.0624 456 -O.03355 0.4749 456 -O.15288 0.0011 456 O.10682 0.0225 456 -0.02582 0.5824 456 0.00608 0.8970 456 0-24661 0-0001 456 -O.17471 0-0002 456 AXEX O.49318 0.0001 456 0.40265 0.0001 456 O.55864 0.0001 456 0.02673 0.5692 456 -0.24098 0.0001 456 -O.13842 0.0031 456 -0.06875 0.1427 456 0.03675 0.4337 456 -0.22738 0.0001 456 -O.10170 0.0299 456 -0.14357 0.0021 456 -O.18206 0.0001 456 O.25291 0.0001 456 BDI 0.09242 0.0486 456 O.12510 0.0075 456 0.S0278 0.0001 456 -0.21830 0.0001 456 -0.44280 0.0001 456 -O.26989 0.0001 456 -0.31350 0.0001 456 -O.19762 0.0001 456 -O.33067 0.0001 456 -O.28497 0.0001 456 -O.23683 0.0001 456 O.16128 0.0005 456 O.33156 0.0001 456 DENIAL -0.31236 0.0001 456 -0.15544 0.0009 456 -0.26849 0.0001 456 -O.I1334 0.0155 456 0.04225 0.3680 456 -0.00303 0.9486 456 -0.04607 0.3263 456 -0.01152 0.8061 456 0.01306 0.7809 456 -O.04497 0.3380 456 -0.02902 0.5365 456 O.10668 0.0227 456 -0.17503 0.0002 456 to w o SAS VERBALAG PHYSAGG INFREQ 0.58205 0.0001 456 0.47115 0.0001 456 IMPRESS -O.42912 0.0001 456 -0.17641 0.0002 456 AGGRESS 0.73063 0.0001 456 0.59667 0.0001 456 HOSTILST 0.70488 0.0001 456 0.62476 0.0001 456 ANGEREX 0.62096 0.0001 456 0.56864 0.0001 456 OISREGO 0.52082 0.0001 456 0.55137 0.0001 456 VERBALAG 1.00000 O.OOOO 456 0.49303 0.0001 456 PHYSAGG 0.49303 0.0001 456 1.00000 0.0000 456 PASSIVAG 0.41415 0.0001 456 0.37409 0.0001 456 ASSERT 0.35908 0.0001 456 0.23805 0.0001 456 SELFCONF 0.02539 0.5886 456 -0.05823 0.2146 456 INITASS O.14139 0.0025 456 O.11477 0.0142 456 DEFENASS 0.19458 0.0001 456 O.10351 0.0271 456 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROS > |R| UNDER H0:RH0= INITASS DEFENASS FRANK 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.51731 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.41415 0.0001 456 0.37409 0.0001 456 0.0000 456 -O.11360 0.0152 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 ASSERT SELFCONF 0.10652 -0.16802 0.0229 0.0003 456 456 -0.03830 0.21175 0.4146 0.0001 456 456 0.18661 -0.11392 0.0001 0.0149 456 456 0.30286 0.02362 0.0001 0.6150 456 456 0.22084 -0.10618 0.0001 0.0233 456 456 0.22466 0.01111 0.0001 0.8129 456 456 0.35908 0.02539 0.0001 0.5886 456 456 0.23805 -0.05823 0.0001 0.2146 456 456 -0.11360 -O.40258 0.0152 0.0001 456 456 1.OOOOO O.56333 0.0000 0.0001 456 456 0.56333 1.OOOOO 0.0001 0.0000 456 456 O.85756 0.51022 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.64022 0.61995 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.4338 456 0.0061 456 0.9810 456 0.0507 456 0.05132 0.2741 456 O.05646 0.2289 456 0.6043 456 0.1417 456 0.1565 456 0.0004 456 0.07268 0.1212 456 O.15622 0.0008 456 O.1808 456 O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS PRAISE REQESTHE REFUSDEM CÛNFLAV0 DEPENOCY -0.22898 -0.14495 -0.09361 -0.1S071 O.08357 0.0001 0.0019 0.0457 0.0012 0.0746 456 456 456 456 456 O.14139 O.19458 0.0025 0.0001 456 456 O. 11477 0.0142 456 0.0001 456 O.85756 0.0001 456 O.51022 0.0001 456 O.10351 0.0271 456 0.0001 456 0.64022 0.0001 456 0.61995 0.0001 456 1.00000 0.56107 O.OOOO 0.0001 456 456 0.56107 0.0001 456 O.OOOO 456 -0.07361 0.1165 456 0.26311 0.0001 456 0.03880 0.4085 456 O.00843 0.8575 456 0.15260 0.0011 456 -O.21943 0.0001 456 0.07336 0.1177 456 -0.18415 0.0001 456 -0.01053 0.8226 456 0.00540 0.9084 456 -O.26847 0.0001 456 0.04169 0.374S 456 0.12766 0.0063 456 -0.05464 0.2442 456 0.07327 0.1182 456 0.03356 0.4747 456 -0.30603 0.0001 456 0.03840 0.4134 456 0.21748 0.0001 456 -0.11820 0.0115 456 0.01279 0.7853 456 -0.00138 0.9765 456 -0.42036 0.0001 456 0.13087 0.0051 456 0.11755 0.0120 456 -0.06864 0.1434 456 0.00572 0.9031 456 -0.00075 0.9873 456 -0.24654 0.0001 456 0.01034 0.8258 456 O.32547 0.0001 456 -0.05715 0.2232 456 O.10544 0.0243 456 0.07232 0.1230 456 -0.50682 0.0001 456 0.02318 0.6215 456 0.08802 0.0604 456 -O.12707 0.0066 456 -0.04794 0.3070 456 -O.01052 0.8228 456 -0.29163 0.0001 456 -0.04615 0.3254 456 -O.14300 0.0022 456 -0.34980 0.0001 456 -0.22170 0.0001 456 -0.33034 0.0001 456 0.07215 0.1239 456 0.43729 0.0001 456 O.52512 0.0001 456 O.45837 0.0001 456 0.39573 0.0001 456 0.42390 0.0001 456 -0.62704 0.0001 456 -0.29864 0.0001 456 0.48386 0.0001 456 0.78636 0.0001 456 0.73694 0.0001 456 0.53087 0.0001 456 -0.44407 0.0001 456 -0.40091 o.oooi 456 O.45124 0.0001 456 0.41561 0.0001 456 0.34977 0.0001 456 0.41379 0.0001 456 -0.53283 0.0001 456 -0.3580S O.OOOI 456 0.56492 0.0001 456 0.43975 0.0001 456 0.52006 0.0001 456 0.58229 0.0001 456 -0.62403 0.0001 456 -0.43879 O.OOOI 456 to w SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROS > |R| UNDER HO:RH0=O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS VERBALAG PHYSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS OEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REQESTHE REFUSDEM CONFLAVO DEPENDCY FRANK O.32547 0.0001 456 0.08802 0.0604 456 -0.14300 0.0022 456 0.52512 0.0001 456 O.48386 0.0001 456 O.45124 0.0001 456 0.56492 0.0001 456 1.00000 O.OOOO 456 0.34920 0.0001 456 0.43716 0.0001 456 0.38552 0.0001 456 -0.74824 0.0001 456 -0.28841 0.0001 456 PRAISE -0.05715 0.2232 456 -0.12707 0.0066 456 -0.34980 0.0001 456 0.45837 0.0001 456 0.78636 0.0001 456 0.41561 0.0001 456 0.43975 0.0001 456 0.34920 0.0001 456 1.00000 O.OOOO 456 0.46541 0.0001 456 0.34194 0.0001 456 -0.28257 0.0001 456 -O.21255 0.0001 456 REQESTHE 0.10544 0.0243 456 -0.04794 0.3070 456 -0.22170 0.0001 456 0.39573 0.0001 456 0.73694 0.0001 456 0.34977 0.0001 456 0.52006 0.0001 456 0.43716 0.0001 456 0.46541 0.0001 456 1.00000 0.0000 456 0.45088 0.0001 456 -O.39833 0.0001 456 -0.24221 0.0001 456 REFUSDEM 0.07232 0.1230 456 -O.01052 0.8228 456 -0.33034 0.0001 456 0.42390 0.0001 456 0.53087 0.0001 456 0.41379 0.0001 456 0.58229 0.0001 456 0.38552 0.0001 456 O.34194 0.0001 456 0.45088 0.0001 456 1.OOOOO 0.0000 456 -0.45013 0.0001 456 -O.47325 0.0001 456 CONFLAVO -0.50682 0.0001 456 -0.29163 0.0001 456 0.07215 O.1239 456 -0.62704 0.0001 456 -0.44407 0.0001 456 -0.53283 0.0001 456 -O.62403 0.0001 456 -0.74824 0.0001 456 -O.28257 0.0001 456 -O.39833 0.0001 456 -O.45013 0.0001 456 1.OOOOO 0.0000 456 0.39074 0.0001 456 DEPENDCY 0.02318 0.6215 456 -0.04615 0.3254 456 0.43729 0.0001 456 -0.29864 0.0001 456 -0.40091 0.0001 456 -0.35805 0.0001 456 -0.43879 0-0001 456 -0.28841 0.0001 456 -O.21255 0.0001 456 -0.24221 0.0001 456 -O.47325 0.0001 456 0.39074 0.0001 456 1.00000 O.OOOO 456 SHY 0.02004 0.6695 456 0.06349 O.1759 456 0.33438 0.0001 456 -0.56817 0.0001 456 -O.51634 0.0001 456 -0.60338 0.0001 456 -O.44231 0.0001 456 -O.36824 0.0001 456 -O.45522 0.0001 456 -0.33832 0.0001 456 -0.33583 0-0001 456 0.31878 0.0001 456 0.'l8147 0.0001 456 ASSAULT O.47202 0.0001 456 O.68687 0.0001 456 0.30669 0.0001 456 0.20591 0.0001 456 -O.02743 0.5591 456 0.09218 0.0491 456 0.16370 0.0004 456 O.15020 0.0013 456 -O.10849 0.0205 456 -0.00721 0.8779 456 0.00095 0.9839 456 -0.34696 0.0001 456 -0.03127 0.5054 456 INDIRHOS 0.33062 0.0001 456 0.31252 0.0001 456 0.34379 0.0001 456 0.01882 0.6885 456 -O.12896 0.0058 456 -0.08154 0.0820 456 -0.05492 0.2419 456 0.03786 0.4199 456 -0.09075 0.0528 456 -0.06484 0.1669 456 -O.07903 0.0919 456 -0.09003 0.0547 456 0.27426 0.0001 456 IRRITBLE 0.39781 0.0001 456 0.27162 0.0001 456 0.60053 0.0001 456 -0.06482 0.1670 456 -0.28663 0.0001 456 -0.21270 0.0001 456 -0.16445 0.0004 456 -0.07238 O.1227 456 -0.22757 0.0001 456 -0.11353 0.0153 456 -O.18251 0.0001 456 -O.01740 0.7110 456 O.39487 0.0001 456 NEGATIVE O.34983 0.0001 456 O.31096 0.0001 456 0.45650 0.0001 456 0.09079 0.0527 456 -0.06879 0.1425 456 -0.03761 0.4230 456 0.05540 0.2377 456 0.03994 0.3948 456 -O.11678 0.0126 456 -0.04812 0.3052 456 -0.03804 0.4177 456 -O.10932 0.0195 456 O.13559 0.0037 456 RESENT 0.31945 0.0001 456 0.29523 0.0001 456 O.65678 0.0001 456 -0.12370 0.0082 456 -0.39261 0.0001 456 -0.24551 0.0001 456 -0.27940 0.0001 456 -O.16573 0.0004 456 -O.33443 0.0001 456 -O.23108 0.0001 456 -0.27098 0.0001 456 0.11218 0.0165 456 0.39349 0.0001 456 SUSPICIN O.34277 0.0001 456 O.28744 0.0001 456 O.66270 0.0001 456 -0.12489 0.0076 456 -0.39948 0.0001 456 -0.23764 0.0001 456 -0.27658 0.0001 456 -0.11082 0.0179 456 -O.32314 0.0001 456 -O.19004 0.0001 456 -0.27770 0.0001 456 0.07733 0.0965 456 O.36535 0.0001 456 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUWER OF OBSERVATIONS VERBALAG PHYSAGG PASSIVAG ASSERT SELFCONF INITASS OEFENASS FRANK PRAISE REQESTHE REFUSOEH CONFLAVO OEPENDCY VERBLHOS O.61920 0.0001 456 0.42908 0.0001 456 0.28379- 0.0001 456 0.46835 0.0001 456 0.18035 0.0001 456 0.31094 0.0001 456 0.39076 0.0001 456 0.40297 0.0001 456 0.10185 0.0297 456 0.21512 0.0001 456 0.18762 0.0001 456 -0.58185 0.0001 456 -0.05564 0.2357 456 GUILT 0.00909 0.8464 456 -0.00588 0.9004 456 0.36222 0.0001 456 -0.24913 0.0001 456 -0.43691 0.0001 456 -0.24111 0.0001 456 -0.41364 0.0001 456 -0.28966 0.0001 456 -0.30608 0.0001 456 -0.29663 0.0001 456 -0.34750 0.0001 456 0.30957 0.0001 456 0.49580 0.0001 456 TOTLHOST 0.57214 0.0001 456 0.51977 0.0001 456 0.70884 0.0001 456 0.06261 O.1820 456 -0.29478 0.0001 456 -0.10982 0.0190 456 -0.09636 0.0397 456 0.01717 0.7146 456 -0.26598 0.0001 456 -0.13029 0.0053 456 -0.18676 0.0001 456 -0.15433 0.0009 456 0.37370 0.0001 456 0IM1 0.79282 0.0001 456 O.77338 0.0001 456 0.48138 0.0001 456 0.30099 0.0001 456 -0.03082 0.5116 456 0.09187 0.0499 456 0.16369 0.0004 456 0.16561 0.0004 456 -O.12129 0.0095 456 0.02812 0.5491 456 0.02161 0.6453 456 -0.38219 0.0001 456 0.01475 0.7535 456 0IM2 0.62257 0.0001 456 0.50533 0.0001 456 0.56237 0.0001 456 0.18313 0.0001 456 -0.14554 0.0018 456 -0.01987 0.6722 456 0.07618 0.1042 456 0.21168 0.0001 456 -0.15777 0.0007 456 0.00626 0.8940 456 -0.04450 0.3430 456 -O.37612 0.0001 456 O.22083 0.0001 456 0IM3 0.45479 0.0001 456 0.38723 0.0001 456 0.84464 0.0001 456 -0.11084 0.0179 456 -0.45577 0.0001 456 -O.27083 0.0001 456 -0.27807 0.0001 456 -0.15690 0.0008 456 -0.38760 0.0001 456 -0.25303 0.0001 456 -O.32375 0.0001 456 0.04626 0.3243 456 0.43847 0.0001 456 FACTOR1 0.66837 0.0001 456 0.70116 0.0001 456 0.27595 0.0001 456 0.35240 0.0001 456 0.10585 0.0238 456 O. 18312 0.0001 456 0.25379 0.0001 456 0.17339 0.0002 456 -0.01729 0.7127 456 0.08956 0.0560 456 0.10515 0.0247 456 -0.36561 0.0001 456 -0.13807 0.0031 456 FACTORS 0.49027 0.0001 456 0.33755 0.0001 456 O.30154 0.0001 456 O.22583 0.0001 456 -O.00078 0.9867 456 O.08365 0.0743 456 0.16963 0.0003 456 0.33790 0.0001 456 -0.01460 0.7558 456 0.11156 0.0172 456 O.06563 0.1618 456 -0.46978 0.0001 456 0.12649 0.0068 456 FACTORS O.16745 0.0003 456 O.13421 0.0041 456 0.78889 0.0001 456 -O.32284 0.0001 456 -0.54278 0.0001 456 -O.40922 0.0001 456 -O.46767 0.0001 456 -0.35664 0.0001 456 -0.42774 0.0001 456 -0.34712 0.0001 456 -0.41234 0.0001 456 0.35035 0.0001 456 0.51265 0.0001 456 SHY ASSAULT INDIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST DIM1 0IM2 DIM3 ID -0.02993 0.5239 456 -O.03224 0.4922 456 -0.00394 0.9332 456 0.02438 0.6035 456 -0.01283 0.7847 456 -0.06791 0.1477 456 -0.03035 0.5180 456 0.02223 0.6358 456 -O.02004 0.6696 456 -0.02125 0.6508 456 -0.01546 0.7419 456 0.01543 0.7425 456 -0.01930 0.6811 456 GRADE 0.00160 0.9730 450 0.05464 0.2474 450 -O.11129 0.0182 450 -0.11178 0.0177 450 0.00955 0.8399 450 -0.07680 O.1037 450 -0.13166 0.0052 450 0.07340 0.1200 450 -0.23345 0.0001 450 -0.09921 0.0354 450 O.06307 0.1817 450 -O.03742 0.4284 450 -O.12432 0.0083 450 SEX 0.00074 0.9875 455 0.36143 0.0001 455 -0.05779 0.2186 455 -0.09537 0.0420 455 0.07374 O. 1163 455 -0.01028 0.8268 455 -0.13136 0.0050 455 0.20368 0.0001 455 -O.14317 0.0022 455 O.05146 0.2733 455 O.36756 0.0001 455 0.05088 0.2788 455 -O.05299 0.2593 455 RACE 0.14778 0.0016 455 0.06902 O.1416 455 -0.01086 0.8173 455 0.02769 0.5558 455 0.14335 0.0022 455 0.00433 0.9266 455 0.11143 0.0174 455 0.02151 0.6473 455 0.09228 0.0492 455 0.08212 0.0801 455 O.06524 0.1648 455 0.08305 0.0768 455 0. 11169 0.0172 455 SAS AGE MARITAL OADEO MOMED HOME PLACE RSA RSB STASS STAST AXOUT AXIN SHY -0.03012 0.5216 455 O.05046 0.2828 455 -0.03962 0.3991 455 -0.04135 0.3789 455 0.06264 O. 1842 451 -0.05598 0.2339 454 -0.23353 0.0001 455 -0.43537 0.0001 455 O.19896 0.0001 456 O.21474 0.0001 456 0.04000 0.3941 456 0.36733 0.0001 456 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROS > |R| UNDER HO:RH0=O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS ASSAULT IWIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPK 0.04201 O.00332 0.3713 0.9437 455 455 0.06390 0.01268 0.1736 0.7874 455 455 -0.03937 0.07333 0.4021 O.1183 455 455 0.00938 -0.03839 0.8418 0.4140 455 455 0.05178 -0.02197 0.2725 0.6417 451 4SI -0.04774 -0.00661 0.3101 0.8882 454 454 -0.17935 0.03174 0.0001 0.4994 455 455 O.24609 0.01338 0.0001 0.7760 455 455 0.20502 0.23615 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.43335 0.43104 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.46795 0.39415 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 O.10399 0.27036 0.0264 0.0001 456 456 0.4332 455 0.7993 455 0.7906 455 0.7582 455 0.8040 451 0.6758 454 0.0075 455 0.0501 455 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0790 455 0.6848 455 0.6651 455 0.3798 455 0.9378 451 0.0431 454 0.7053 455 O.1764 455 0.2506 455 0.6627 455 0.9420 451 0.7878 454 0.2178 455 0.2082 455 0.4494 455 0.4260 455 0.7488 451 0.3592 454 VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST DIM1 DIM2 DIM3 O.04745 0.3125 455 -0.09581 0.0411 455 0.01206 0.7975 455 0.07776 0.0976 455 0.02703 0.5652 455 -0.01494 0.7506 455 0.04679 0.3193 455 0.00261 0.9558 455 0.00945 0.8406 455 0.05S99 0.2332 455 O.06559 0.1625 455 -0.00508 0.9139 455 0.00682 0.8847 455 -0.00986 0.8339 455 -0.01305 0.7813 455 -0.00303 0.9485 455 0.02923 0.5340 455 -0.01352 0.7736 455 0.6476 455 0.8666 451 0.5454 454 -O.06318 -0.01586 -0.00066 -0.01957 -0.00034 0.1785 0.7358 0.9887 0.6772 0.9943 455 455 455 455 455 0.03846 0.01699 0.02181 -0.02505 0.01482 0.4152 0.7190 0.6441 0.5957 0.7536 451 451 451 451 451 0.08253 -O.02393 -0.04817 -0.01441 0.00078 0.0790 0.6111 0.3058 0.7S95 0.9868 454 454 454 454 454 0.11032 -0.14304 -0.38324 -0.14418 -O.14498 0.0001 455 0.0003 455 O.1087 455 0.0036 455 0.0186 455 0.0022 455 0.0001 455 0.0020 455 0.0019 455 0.07607 0.1051 455 -0.12732 0.0065 455 -0.05710 0.2242 455 0.41461 0.0001 455 -O.19619 0.0001 455 0.07313 0.1193 455 0.25803 0.0001 455 O.17135 0.0002 455 -O.08819 0.0602 455 0.19001 0.0001 456 O.33155 0.0001 456 O.34150 0.0001 456 0.10667 0.0227 456 O.20212 0.0001 456 O.37827 0.0001 456 O.23459 0.0001 456 0.36260 0.0001 456 0.44755 0.0001 456 0.34614 0.0001 456 0.52520 0.0001 456 0.48S40 0.0001 456 O.41691 0.0001 456 O.32405 0.0001 456 O.71277 0.0001 456 0.50615 0.0001 456 O.85892 0.0001 456 0.83695 0.0001 456 0.29681 0.0001 456 O.35107 0.0001 456 0.33576 0.0001 456 0.59002 0.0001 456 0.13920 0.0029 456 0.61103 0.0001 456 O.54624 0.0001 456 O.82381 0.0001 456 O.52812 0.0001 456 O.20B26 0.0001 456 O.39600 0.0001 456 0.36750 0.0001 456 -0.04374 0.3514 456 0.34511 0.0001 456 0.39548 0.0001 456 0.20284 0.0001 456 0.23071 0.0001 456 0.62815 0.0001 456 N3 W AXCON -0.11011 -O.33471 -0.37690 -0.47207 -0.21939 -0.35940 -O.29061 O.39833 -O.11907 -0.51588 -0.40951 -O.77010 -0.49229 0.0187 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0109 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 SAS AXEX BDl DENIAL INFREO IMPRESS AGGRESS HOSTILST ANGEREX DISREGD VERBALAG PHYSAGG PASSIVAG SHY O.24189 0.0001 456 0.32921 0.0001 456 O.00997 0.8319 456 0.18521 0.0001 456 -O.16424 0.0004 456 0.14851 0.0015 456 0.04179 0.3733 456 0.07641 0.1032 456 0.07961 O.OB95 456 0.02004 0.6695 456 0.06349 O.1759 456 0.33438 0.0001 456 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO:RHO= ASSAULT INDIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS 0.42044 O.48708 0.63766 0.33523 0.51695 0.46151 0.43805 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 O / NUI«ER OF OBSERVATIONS GUILT TOTLHOST 0.09653 0.20603 0.0394 0.0001 456 456 -0.16645 -0.34690 0.0004 0.0001 456 456 0.38691 0.20305 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 -0.15999 -O.41364 0.0006 0.0001 456 456 O.52568 O.32468 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.59125 0.31492 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.50927 0.53382 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.46983 0.15258 0.0001 0.0011 456 456 0.47202 O.33062 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.68687 O.31252 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 O.30669 O.34379 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.19877 0.0001 456 0.43046 0-0001 456 0.42185 0.0001 456 -0.16946 0.0003 456 -0.26936 0.0001 456 -0.27557 0.0001 456 0.37326 0.0001 456 0.34192 0.0001 456 0.29788 0.0001 456 -0.31099 0.0001 456 -O.40048 0.0001 456 -O.43214 0.0001 456 0.40821 0.0001 456 O.38015 0.0001 456 0.40235 0.0001 456 0.37769 0.0001 456 0.32756 0.0001 456 O.32444 0.0001 456 0.30699 0.0001 456 0.38773 0.0001 456 0.40985 0.0001 456 0.38713 0.0001 456 0.31307 0.0001 456 0.30880 0.0001 456 0.34983 0.0001 456 0.31945 0.0001 456 0.34277 0.0001 456 0.31096 0.0001 456 0.29523 0.0001 456 0.28744 0.0001 456 O.45650 0.0001 456 0.65678 0.0001 456 0.66270 0.0001 456 0.1197 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.42908 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0014 456 0.0213 456 0.0001 456 0.4037 456 0.5943 456 0.0001 456 0.4390 456 0.8464 456 0.9004 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 0.0001 456 DIM1 0IH2 DIM3 O.53773 0.0001 456 O.85645 0.0001 456 O.76715 0.0001 456 O.13846 0.0030 456 O.35688 0.0001 456 O.57319 0.0001 456 -0.33992 0.0001 456 -0.39419 0.0001 456 -O.37926 0.0001 456 0.58095 0.0001 456 0.43644 0.0001 456 0.41956 0.0001 456 -O.35348 0.0001 456 -0.53941 0.0001 456 -O.56778 0.0001 456 0.91207 0.0001 456 0.58062 0.0001 456 0.53174 0.0001 456 0.94261 0.0001 456 0.54109 0.0001 456 0.46733 0.0001 456 23 5 0.63870 0.0001 456 0.87040 0.0001 456 0.61420 0.0001 456 0.78246 0.0001 456 0.43530 0.0001 456 O.42198 0.0001 456 0.79282 0.0001 456 0.62257 0.0001 456 0.45479 0.0001 456 O.77338 0.0001 456 0.50533 0.0001 456 0.38723 0.0001 456 O.48138 0.0001 456 O.56237 0.0001 456 0.84464 0.0001 456 ASSERT -O.56817 0.0001 456 0.20591 0.01882 0.0001 0.6885 456 456 -0.06482 0.09079 O.1670 0.0527 456 456 -0.12370 -0.12489 0.0082 0.0076 456 456 0.46835 -0.24913 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.06261 0.30099 O.1820 0.0001 456 456 0.18313 -0.11084 0.0001 0.0179 456 456 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS SHY ASSAULT INOIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST OIMl DIM2 0IM3 SELFCONF -0.51634 0.0001 456 -0.02743 0.5591 456 -0.12896 0.0058 456 -0.28663 0.0001 456 -0.06879 O.1425 456 -0.39261 0.0001 456 -0.39948 0.0001 456 0.18035 0.0001 456 -0.43631 0.0001 456 -O.23478 0.0001 456 -0.03082 0.5116 456 -0.14554 0.0018 456 -0.45S77 0.0001 456 INITASS -0.60338 0.0001 456 0.09218 0.0491 456 -0.08154 0.0820 456 -0.21270 0.0001 456 -0.03761 0.4230 456 -0.24551 0.0001 456 -0.23764 0.0001 456 0.31094 0.0001 456 -O.24111 0.0001 456 -0.10982 0.0190 456 O.03187 0.0499 456 -0.01387 0.6722 456 -0.27083 O.OOOl 456 DEFENASS -0.44231 0.0001 456 0.16370 0.0004 456 -0.05492 0.2419 456 -0.16445 0.0004 456 0.05540 0.2377 456 -0.27940 0.0001 456 -O.27658 0.0001 456 O.39076 0.0001 456 -O.41364 0.0001 456 -O.09636 0.0397 456 O.16369 0.0004 456 O.07618 0.1042 456 -0.27807 O.OOOl 456 FRANK -0.3G824 0.0001 456 O.15020 0.0013 456 0.03786 0.4199 456 -0.07238 0.1227 456 0.03994 0.3948 456 -0.16573 0.0004 456 -O.11082 0.0179 456 O.40297 0.0001 456 -0.28966 0.0001 456 0.01717 0.7146 456 0.16561 0.0004 456 0.21168 O.OOOl 456 -0.15690 0.0008 456 PRAISE -O.45522 0.0001 456 -O.10849 0.0205 456 -0.09075 0.0528 456 -O.22757 0.0001 456 -0.11678 0.0126 456 -0.33443 0.0001 456 -0.32314 . 0.0001 456 0.10185 0.0297 456 -0.30608 0.0001 456 -0.26598 O.OOOl 456 -0.12129 0.0095 456 -0.15777 0.0007 456 -0.38760 O.OOOl 456 REQESTHE -0.33832 0.0001 456 -0.00721 0.8779 456 -0.06484 0.1669 456 -0.11353 0.0153 456 -0.04812 0.3052 456 -0.23108 0.0001 456 -0.19004 0.0001 456 0.21512 0.0001 456 -0.29663 0.0001 456 -0.13029 0.0053 456 0.02812 0.5491 456 0.00626 0.8940 456 -0.25303 0.0001 456 REFUSDEM -O.33583 0.0001 456 O.00035 0.9839 456 -0.07903 0.0919 456 -0.18251 0.0001 456 -0.03804 0.4177 456 -0.27098 0.0001 456 -0.27770 0.0001 456 0.18762 0.0001 456 -O.34750 0.0001 456 -0.18676 O.OOOl 456 0.02161 0.6453 456 -0.04450 0.3430 456 -0.32375 0.0001 456 CONFLAVO 0.31878 0.0001 456 -0.34696 0.0001 456 -0.09003 0.0547 456 -0.01740 0.7110 456 -0.10932 0.0195 456 0.11218 0.0165 456 0.07793 0.0965 456 -0.58185 0.0001 456 0.30957 0.0001 456 -O.15433 0.0009 456 -0.38219 O.OOOl 456 -O.37612 0.0001 456 O.04626 0.3243 456 DEPENDCy 0. 18147 0.0001 456 -0.03127 0.50S4 456 0.27426 0.0001 456 0.39487 0.0001 456 0.13559 0.0037 456 O.39349 0.0001 456 0.36535 0.0001 456 -0.05564 0.2357 456 0.49580 0.0001 456 0.37370 0.0001 456 0.01475 0.7535 456 0.22083 0.0001 456 O.43847 0.0001 456 SHY 1.00000 O.OOOO 456 0.07341 0.1175 456 0.08545 0.0683 456 0.30199 0.0001 456 0.16636 0.0004 456 0.30776 0.0001 456 O.30354 0.0001 456 -O.14009 0.0027 456 O.24627 0.0001 456 0.25056 0.0001 456 0.08746 0.0620 456 O. 11840 0.0114 456 O.37971 0.0001 456 ASSAULT 0.07341 0.1175 456 1.00000 0.0000 456 O.30647 0.0001 456 O.31238 0.0001 456 O.32223 0.0001 456 0.25020 0.0001 436 0.22801 0.0001 456 0.48390 0.0001 456 0.02535 0.5893 456 0.53955 0.0001 456 O.72327 0.0001 456 O.53947 0.0001 456 0.38188 O.OOOl 456 INOIRHOS 0.08545 0.0683 456 0.30647 0.0001 456 1.OOOOO 0.0000 456 O.49625 0.0001 456 O.25522 0.0001 456 0.30417 0.0001 456 O.26992 0.0001 456 0.33026 0.0001 456 0.22970 0.0001 456 0.61812 O.OOOl 456 O.35427 O.OOOl 456 0.58596 O.OOOl 456 O.46549 O.OOOl 456 IRRITBLE 0.30199 0.0001 456 0.31238 0.0001 456 0.49625 0.0001 456 1.OOOOO 0.0000 456 O.41471 0.0001 456 O.56593 O.OOQI 456 O.50955 0.0001 456 O.34514 0.0001 456 0.39050 0.0001 456 0.79316 0.0001 456 0.43593 O.OOOl 456 0.64383 O.OOOl 456 0.78654 O.OOOl 456 ro w SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS SHY ASSAULT INDIRHOS IRRITBLE NEGATIVE RESENT SUSPICIN VERBLHOS GUILT TOTLHOST 0IM1 DIM2 DIM3 NEGATIVE O. 16636 G.0004 456 0.32223 0.0001 456 0.25522 0.0001 456 0.41471 0.0001 456 1.00000 O.OOOO 456 0.33294 O.OOOl 456 0.35826 O.OOOl 456 0.31975 O.OOOl 456 0.12272 0.0087 456 O.55713 0.0001 456 0.43222 O.OOOl 456 0.37341 0.0001 456 O.45534 0.0001 456 RESENT 0.30776 0.0001 456 O.25020 0.0001 456 0.30417 0.0001 456 0.56593 0.0001 456 0.33294 O.OOOl 456 1.00000 O.OOOO 456 0.60855 O.OOOl 456 0.22777 O.OOOl 456 0.41062 O.OOOl 456 0.71707 0.0001 456 0.38063 O.OOOl 456 0.49286 0.0001 456 O.75363 O.OOOl 456 SUSPICIN 0.30954 0.0001 456 0.22801 0.0001 456 0.26992 0.0001 456 0.50955 0.0001 456 0.35826 O.OOOl 456 0.60855 O.OOOl 456 1.00000 O.OOOO 456 0.22333 O.OOOl 456 0.42381 0.0001 456 O.70302 0.0001 456 O.38384 0.0001 456 0.4S970 0.0001 456 O.72898 0.0001 456 VERBLHOS -0.14009 0.0027 456 0.48990 0.0001 456 0.33026 0.0001 456 0.34514 0.0001 456 0.31975 O.OOOl 456 0.22777 O.OOOl 456 0.22333 0.0001 456 1.00000 0.0000 456 -0.02902 0.5365 456 0.60532 0.0001 456 0.57505 0.0001 456 0.66489 0.0001 456 O.33645 0.0001 456 GUILT 0.24627 0.0001 456 0.02535 0.5893 456 O.22970 0.0001 456 0.39050 0.0001 456 0.12272 O.OOB7 456 0.41062 O.OOOl 456 0.42381 0.0001 456 -0.02902 0.5365 456 1.OOOOO 0.0000 . 456 O.49583 0.0001 456 0.00236 0.9599 456 O.23244 0.0001 456 O.46286 0.0001 456 TOTLHOST O.25056 0.0001 456 0.59955 0.0001 456 0.61812 0.0001 456 0.79316 0.0001 456 0.55713 O.OOOl 456 0.71707 0.0001 456 0.70302 0.0001 456 0.60532 0.0001 456 0.49583 0.0001 456 1.OOOOO 0.0000 456 o.65912 0.0001 456 O.80089 0.0001 456 O.85186 0.0001 456 DIM1 0.08746 0.0620 456 0.72927 0.0001 456 0.35427 0.0001 456 0.43593 0.0001 456 0.43222 0.0001 456 0.38063 0.0001 456 0.38384 0.0001 456 O.57505 0.0001 456 0.00236 0.9599 456 O.65912 0.0001 456 1.OOOOO 0.0000 456 0.64424 O.OOOl 456 0.53516 O.OOOl 456 0IM2 0. 11840 0.0114 456 0.53947 0.0001 456 0.58596 0.0001 456 0.64983 0.0001 456 O.37341 0.0001 456 O.49286 0.0001 456 0.45970 0.0001 456 O.66489 0.0001 456 O.23244 0.0001 456 O.80089 0.0001 456 0.64424 O.OOOl 456 1.00000 O.OOOO 456 0.75348 O.OOOl 456 DIM3 0.37971 0.0001 456 0.38188 0.0001 456 0.46549 0.0001 456 0.78654 0.0001 456 0.45534 0.0001 456 O.75363 0.0001 456 O.72898 0.0001 456 O.33645 0.0001 456 0.46286 0.0001 456 0.85186 O.OOOl 456 0.53516 O.OOOl 456 0.75348 O.OOOl 456 1.00000 O.OOOO 456 FACTOR1 -0.01240 0.63247 O.12221 O.16499 O.36545 0.16617 0.19825 0.47168 -O.16547 0.39411 0.92900 0.35611 0.25376 0.7918 0.0001 0.0090 0.0004 0.0001 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0004 O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.0001 O.OOOl 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 FACT0R2 -0.02250 0.43365 O.56754 O.49706 0.18345 O.25659 0.20712 0.65636 0.15124 0.60592 O.35552 O.88054 0.46054 0.6318 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.0012 O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 FACT0R3 0.45700 0.07107 O.32346 0.69076 O.42243 0.78501 0.77202 -0.01355 0.52088 0.67315 0.25094 O.38508 O.86874 0.0001 0.1297 0.0001 0.0001 O.OOOl O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.7729 O.OOOl O.OOOl 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 456 FACTOR1 FACT0R2 FACT0R3 10 -0.02519 0.05788 -0.04285 0.5916 0.2174 0.3613 456 456 456 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO;RH0=O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS FACTOR1 FACTQR2 FACTORS GRADE O.12296 0.0090 450 -O.03469 0.4630 450 -O.16509 0.0004 450 SEX 0.43862 0.0001 455 -0.00381 0.9355 455 -0.19473 0.0001 455 RACE 0.05830 0.2146 455 0.02238 0.6340 455 0.09119 0.0519 455 AGE 0.09101 0.0524 455 0.02802 0.5510 455 -0.03824 0.4159 455 MARITAL 0.05081 0.2794 455 0.07258 0.1221 455 -0.06046 O.1980 455 OADED -0.01949 0.6784 455 0.05831 0.2144 455 -0.03203 0.4955 455 MOMED 0.00555 0.9061 455 -0.02187 0.6417 455 0.00346 0.9413 455 HOME 0.02540 0.5905 451 -0.03803 0.4205 451 0.01006 0.8313 451 PLACE -O.05460 0.2456 454 O.00301 0.9490 454 -0.00481 0.9186 454 RSA -O.39954 0.0001 455 0.02096 0.6557 455 -0.10779 0.0215 455 RSB 0.29960 0.0001 455 O.21214 0.0001 455 -O.28711 0.0001 455 STASS 0.08957 0.0560 456 0.25143 0.0001 456 0.36853 0.0001 456 STAST 0.23650 0.0001 456 0.64307 0.0001 456 0.54023 0.0001 456 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER HO:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS FACTOR1 FACT0R2 FACTORS AXOUT 0.33719 O.78358 0.18890 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 456 AXIN 0.06195 0.1867 456 -0.00315 0.9465 456 0.65006 0.0001 456 AXCON -0.16578 0.0004 456 -O.70888 0.0001 456 -0.24925 0.0001 456 AXEX 0.25762 0.0001 456 0.70084 0.0001 456 0.50649 0.0001 456 BOI -0.03662 0.4353 456 0.21308 0.0001 456 0.56235 0.0001 456 DENIAL -0.21529 0.0001 456 -0.28534 0.0001 456 -0.28624 0.0001 456 INFREO 0.49847 0.0001 456 O.25461 0.0001 456 0.25980 0.0001 456 IMPRESS -O.15269 0.0011 456 -0.42352 0.0001 456 -O.46474 0.0001 456 AGGRESS O.84101 0.0001 456 0.27065 0.0001 456 O.32548 0.0001 456 HOSTILST 0.91801 0.0001 456 O.22385 0.0001 456 O.23323 0.0001 456 ANGEREX O.39645 0.0001 456 0.80015 0.0001 456 0.28072 0.0001 456 DISREGD 0.80308 0.0001 456 0.08847 0.0591 456 0.26309 0.0001 456 VERBALAG 0.66837 0.0001 456 0.49027 0.0001 456 O.16745 0.0003 456 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROS > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / MJMBER OF OBSERVATIONS FACTOR1 FACT0R2 FACT0R3 PHYSAGG 0.7011G 0.0001 456 0.33755 0.0001 456 0.13421 0.0041 456 PASSIVAG 0.27595 0.0001 456 0.30154 0.0001 456 0.78889 0.0001 456 ASSERT O.35240 0.0001 456 O.22583 0.0001 456 -0.32284 0.0001 456 SELFCONF 0.10585 0.0238 456 -0.00078 0.9867 456 -0.54278 0.0001 456 INITASS 0.18312 0.0001 456 0.08365 0.0743 456 -0.40922 0.0001 456 DEFENASS 0.25379 0.0001 456 0.16963 0.0003 456 -0.46767 0.0001 456 FRANK 0.17339 0.0002 456 0.33790 0.0001 456 -0.35664 0.0001 456 PRAISE -0.01729 0.7127 456 -0.01460 0.7558 456 -0.42774 0.0001 456 PEOESTHE 0.08956 0.0560 456 0.11156 0.0172 456 -0.34712 0.0001 456 REFUSDEM O.10515 0.0247 456 0.06563 0. 1618 456 -O.41234 0.0001 456 CONFLAVD -O.36561 0.0001 456 -O.46978 0.0001 456 0.35035 0.0001 456 OEPENDCY -0.13807 0.0031 456 0.12649 0.0068 456 0.51265 0.0001 456 SHY -0.01240 0.7918 456 -0.02250 0.6318 456 O.45700 0.0001 456 SAS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RHQ=O / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS FACTOR1 FACTORS FACTORS ASSAULT 0.63247 0.0001 456 INOIRHOS 0.12221 0.0090 456 IRRITBLE 0.16499 . 0.0004 456 NEGATIVE O.36545 0.0001 456 RESENT O.16617 0.0004 456 SUSPICIN O.19825 0.0001 456 VERBLHOS O.47168 0.0001 456 .GUILT -0.16547 0.0004 456 TOTLHOST 0.39411 0.0001 456 DIM1 O.92900 0.0001 456 0.43365 0.07107 0.0001 O.1297 456 456 0.56754 0.32346 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.49706 0.69076 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.18345 0.42243 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.25659 0.78501 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.20712 0.77202 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 O.65636 -0.013S5 0.0001 0.7729 456 456 0.15124 0.52088 0.0012 0.0001 456 456 0.60592 O.67315 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.35552 O.25094 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 DIM2 DIM3 FACTOR1 456 0.88054 0.38508 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.46054 0.86874 0.0001 0.0001 456 456 0.06384 O.03310 0.1736 0.4808 456 456 0.35611 0.0001 456 0.25376 0.0001 456 1.00000 O.OOOO SAS FACT0R2 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS / PROB > |R| UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS FACTOR1 FACT0R2 FACTORS 0.06384 O.1736 456 1.OOOOO 0.0000 456 0.07555 O.1071 456 FACTORS 0.03310 0.07555 1.00000 0.4808 0.1071 O.OOOO 456 456 456 243 APPENDIX E. SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN THE MEANS FOR THE CLUSTERING VARIABLES 244 Significant Differences In the Means for the Clustering Variables Cluster Mean Code Femininity 4 5.57 A 5 5.54 A 1 5.30 B 3 5.14 B 2 4.89 C Masculinity 2 5.50 A 3 5.29 A 4 4.94 B 5 4.77 B 1 4.46 C State Anger 5 24.39 A 2 24.33 A 1 19.81 B 3 19.39 BC 4 17.32 C 5 12.81 A 2 9.57 B 1 8.76 B 3 5.90 C 4 4.21 C 245 Cluster Mean Code Denial 4 2.62 A 1 2.09 B 3 2.08 B 5 1.64 BC 2 1.33 C Infrequency 2 2.71 A 3 1.71 B 5 1.47 B 1 0.93 C 4 0.64 C Impression Management 4 14.57 A 3 13.16 B 1 12.50 B 5 10.03 C 2 9.08 C Assertlveness 2 16.65 A 3 16.25 A 4 13.78 B 5 12.38 C 1 11.31 C Self-GonfIdence 4 12.12 A 3 11.76 A 2 10.16 B 1 8.90 C 5 8.40 C 246 Cluster Mean Code Initiating Assertlveness 3 11.26 A 2 10.37 A 4 10.14 A 5 7.78 B 1 7.04 B Defending Assertlveness 2 14.47 A 3 14.39 A 4 13.92 A 5 11.19 B 1 10.90 B Frankness 2 8.27 A 3 7.72 A 4 7.52 A 5 6.71 B 1 5.30 C Giving and Receiving Praise 4 6.52 A 3 6.05 A 2 5.08 B 1 5.05 B 5 4.77 B Requesting Help 4 5.79 A 3 5.61 A 2 5.31 A 5 4.68 B 1 4.57 B 247 Cluster Mean Code Refusing Demands 4 4.52 A 3 4.47 A 2 4.24 A 1 3.43 B 5 3.40 B Conflict Avoidance 1 13.90 A 5 10.85 B 4 10.44 B 3 7.98 C 2 6.43 D Dependency 5 14.42 A 1 13.10 A 2 11.67 B 4 9.76 C 3 9.40 C Shyness 1 8.74 A 5 8.36 A 2 7.45 A 3 5.63 B 4 4.71 B Negatlveness 2 3.18 A 5 2.63 B 1 2.36 BC 3 2.16 C 4 1.47 D 248 Cluster Mean Code Guilt 5 5.88 A 1 5.42 A 2 4.61 B 4 3.80 C 3 3.70 C Total Hostility 2 48.53 A 5 44.15 B 1 34.77 C 3 33.64 C 4 23.75 D Note; Means with the same code are not significantly different at 2 < .05.

By

Abstract

Extracted data

By

Abstract

Extracted data

Related items

Related items