Eugene R. Oetting

Orthogonal Cultural Identification Theory: The Cultural Identification of Minority Adolescents

A theory of cultural identification is presented indicating that identification with different cultures is orthogonal. Instead of cultures being placed at opposite ends of a continuum, cultural identification dimensions are independent of each other, and increasing identification with one culture does not require decreasing identification with another. Studies of Native-American and Mexican-American youth show that: (1) identification with Anglo (White American) culture is related to having Anglo friends and to family acceptance of an Anglo marriage, (2) identification with either the minority or the majority culture is a source of personal and social strength, and (3) this greater strength, however, does not translate automatically into less drug use, because drug use is related to how much the culture that the person identifies with approves or disapproves of drugs.

DEVELOPMENT OF A DRIVING ANGER SCALE

A cluster analysis of responses from more than 1500 college students to 53 potentially angering driving-related situations yielded a 33-item driving anger scale (alpha reliability = .90) with six reliable subscales involving hostile gestures, illegal driving, police presence, slow driving, discourtesy, and traffic obstructions. Subscales all correlated positively, suggesting a general dimension of driving anger as well as anger related to specific driving-related situations. Men were more angered by police presence and slow driving whereas women were more angered by illegal behavior and traffic obstructions, but differences compensated so there were no gender differences on total score. A 14-item short form (alpha reliability = .80) was developed from scores more highly correlated (r = .95) with scores on the long form. Driving anger may have potential value for research on accident prevention and health psychology.

Primary Socialization Theory: The Etiology of Drug Use and Deviance. I

The fundamental theorem of primary socialization theory is that normative and deviant behaviors are learned social behaviors, products of the interaction of social, psychological, and cultural characteristics, and that norms for social behaviors, including drug use, are learned predominantly in the context of interactions with the primary socialization sources. During adolescence, learning of social behaviors is frequently dominated by interactions with peer clusters. There are a number of additional postulates: 1) The strength of the bonds between the youth and the primary socialization sources is a major factor in determining how effectively norms are transmitted. 2) Any socialization link can transmit deviant norms, but healthy family and school systems are more likely to transmit prosocial norms. 3) Peer clusters can transmit either prosocial or deviant norms, but the major source of deviant norms is usually peer clusters. 4) Weak family/child and/ or school/child bonds increase the chances that the youth will bond with a deviant peer cluster and will engage in deviant behaviors. 5) Weak peer bonds can also ultimately increase the changes of bonding with deviant peers. Primary socialization theory is consistent with current research, has strong implications for improving prevention and treatment, and suggests specific hypotheses for further research.

Community readiness: Research to practice

Communities are at many different stages of readiness for implementing programs, and this readiness is to be a major factor in determining whether a local program can be effectively implemented and supported by the community. The Community Readiness Model was developed to meet research needs, (e.g., matching treatment and control communities for an experimental intervention) as well as to provide a practical tool to help communities mobile for change. The model defines nine stages of community readiness ranging from “no awareness” of the problem to “professionalization” in the response to the problem within the community. Assessment of the stage of readiness is accomplished using key informant interviews, with questions on six different dimensions related to a communitys readiness to mobilize to address a specific issue. Based on experiences in working directly with communities, strategies for successful effort implementation have been developed for each stage of readiness. Once a community has achieved a stage of readiness where local efforts can be initiated, community teams can be trained in use of the community readiness model. These teams can then develop specific, culturally appropriate efforts that use local resources to guide the community to more advanced levels of readiness, eventually leading to long-term sustainability of local community efforts. This article presents the history of the development of the model, the stages of readiness, dimensions used to assess readiness, how readiness is assessed and strategies for change at each level of readiness.

State-Trait Anger Theory and the Utility of the Trait Anger Scale.

Eight studies present support for state-trait anger theory. In Studies 1-3, high-anger participants reported (a) greater anger in many different provocations, in their most angering ongoing situations, and in daily life, (b) greater anger-related physiological arousal, (c) greater state anger and dysfunctional coping in response to a visualized provocation, and (d) greater use of suppression and outward negative expression of anger. Only heart rate in the visualized provocation did not support predictions. In Studies 4-5, high-anger individuals suffered more frequent and intense anger consequences. In Studies 6-8, trait anger had higher correlations with dimensions of anger than with other emotions, cognitions, and behaviors. Few gender differences were found across studies. Results were discussed in terms of state-trait theory, convergent and discriminant validity for the Trait Anger Scale, anger expression, gender, and the implications for counseling.

CHARACTERISTICS AND TREATMENT OF HIGH-ANGER DRIVERS

This paper reports on some characteristics of high-anger drivers in comparison with low-anger drivers. A client analogue of angry drivers reported more frequent and intense anger, aggressive and risky behavior, and accidents (mainly minor accidents or near-accidents) than low-anger drivers, but the groups did not differ on major accidents or moving violations. Angry drivers reported more trait anger and anxiety, anger suppression and outward, less-controlled forms of anger expression. Relaxation and cognitive-relaxation interventions lowered driving anger compared with an untreated control. The cognitive-relaxation intervention was superior on risky behavior, while the relaxation intervention was superior on other measures. Interventions did not influence trait anger, anxiety or general anger expression. State-trait anger theory, construct validity of the trait driver anger measure and the feasibility of driving anger reduction are supported by these findings.

The driving anger expression inventory: a measure of how people express their anger on the road.

Four ways people express their anger when driving were identified. Verbal Aggressive Expression (alpha=0.88) assesses verbally aggressive expression of anger (e.g., yelling or cursing at another driver); Personal Physical Aggressive Expression (alpha=0.81), the ways the person uses him/herself to express anger (e.g., trying to get out and tell off or have a physical fight with another driver); Use of the Vehicle to Express Anger (alpha=0.86), the ways the person uses his/her vehicle to express anger (e.g., flashing lights at or cutting another driver off in anger); and Adaptive/Constructive Expression (alpha=0.90), the ways the person copes positively with anger (e.g., focuses on safe driving or tries to relax). Aggressive forms can be summed into Total Aggressive Expression Index (alpha=0.90). Aggressive forms of expression correlated positively with each other (rs=0.39-0.48), but were uncorrelated or correlated negatively with adaptive/constructive expression (rs=-0.02 to -0.22). Aggressive forms of anger expression correlated positively with driving-related anger, aggression, and risky behavior; adaptive/constructive expression tended to correlate negatively with these variables. Differences in the strengths of correlations and regression analyses supported discriminant and incremental validity and suggested forms of anger expression contributed differentially to understanding driving-related behaviors. Theoretical and treatment implications were explored.

The expression of anger and its consequences

Cluster analysis, using TRYSYS key cluster variable analyses, on 59 anger expression items replicated Spielbergers Anger-In and Anger-Control dimensions and revealed seven additional forms of anger expression: Noisy Arguing, Verbal Assault, Physical Assault-People, Physical Assault-Objects, Reciprocal Communication, Time Out, and Direct Expression. Aggressive dimensions (Noisy Arguing, Verbal Assault, Physical Assault-People and -Objects) correlated positively with each other and with trait anger and negatively with non-aggressive forms of expression (Control, Reciprocal Communication, and Time Out). The latter were positively correlated with each other and negatively with trait anger. Forms of expression correlated logically with the frequency of eight types of anger consequences, and there was evidence of distinct relationships between anger expression and anger consequences; e.g. Physical Assault-People correlated most with frequency of physical altercations, and Noisy Arguing and Verbal Assault with the frequency of verbal fights. Males were more likely to utilize aggressive forms of expression and to suffer consequences involving physical and verbal fights and property damage. Results are discussed in terms of convergent and discriminant validity, and in terms of their implications for assessment, treatment, and future research.

Anger, aggression, risky behavior, and crash-related outcomes in three groups of drivers.

High anger drivers who acknowledged problems with driving anger and were interested in treatment were compared to high and low anger drivers who did not acknowledge problems with driving anger or want treatment. Although high anger drivers who acknowledged problems reported greater anger on two measures than high anger drivers who did not acknowledge problems, both high anger groups tended not to differ from one another and were more frequently and intensely angered when driving, reported more aggressive and less adaptive/constructive forms of expressing anger while driving, engaged in more aggressive and risky behavior on the road, and experienced more of some accident-related outcomes than low anger drivers. High anger groups did not differ from each other, but reported more trait anxiety and anger and more outward negative and less controlled general anger expression than the low anger group. The two groups of high anger drivers, however, require different types of interventions given their state of readiness for driving anger reduction. Results were also interpreted as supportive of the state-trait model of anger and construct validity of the Driving Anger Scale.

Driving anger: correlates and a test of state-trait theory

A survey and field study evaluated predictions from state-trait theory applied to driving anger. Trait driving anger, the propensity to become angry when driving, correlated positively with anger in frequently occurring driving situations and in day-to-day driving and with aggressive and risky behaviors while driving. Although not correlated with crash rates or moving violations, trait driving anger correlated with crash-related conditions such as loss concentration, loss of vehicular control, and close calls. Results generally supported predictions from state-trait theory and the construct validity of the Driving Anger Scale, as well as mapping correlates of the disposition to become angry while driving.