Behavioral Anger Response Questionnaire (BARQ)

1. Abstract

The Behavioral Anger Response Questionnaire (BARQ) is a psychometrically validated self-report assessment instrument designed to measure the multidimensional behavioral coping responses individuals deploy when experiencing anger. Developed by psychometrics and clinical health psychology researchers—primarily established in the seminal work by Wolfgang Linden, Barbara E. Hogan, Thomas Rutledge, and colleagues (2003) and subsequently adapted for pediatric, adolescent, and cross-cultural developmental cohorts by Carolien Rieffe, Mark Meerum Terwogt, and Anne C. Miers (2007)—the BARQ was constructed to overcome the historical oversimplification of anger regulation. For decades, psychometric assessment of anger was dominated by a rigid, unidimensional or dichotomous polarity: “anger-in” (internal suppression) versus “anger-out” (external physical or verbal aggression), popularized largely by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI). The BARQ establishes that anger coping constitutes an ecologically complex behavioral spectrum.

The questionnaire captures 6 core behavioral dimensions across 37 standardized items: Direct Anger-Out, Assertion, Social Support-Seeking, Diffusion, Avoidance, and Rumination. Items are rated on a standard polytomous frequency response format (1 = not true, 2 = sometimes true, 3 = often true; with adult variants utilizing a continuous Likert scale from 1 to 5). Across numerous validation cohorts encompassing healthy adult populations, clinical cohorts presenting with cardiovascular and affective disorders, and pediatric samples experiencing somatic complaints, the BARQ exhibits robust psychometric reliability and structural validity. Cronbach’s internal consistency reliability coefficients across the subscales typically range from α = .65 to .85 (mean α ≈ .76). Confirmatory factor analyses consistently substantiate the six-factor behavioral architecture over traditional two-factor models. The scale provides crucial empirical utility in behavioral medicine, health psychology, pediatric emotion regulation research, and clinical diagnostics by dissociating constructive, non-hostile responses (assertion, healthy diffusion) from deleterious patterns (maladaptive rumination, destructive anger-out, passive avoidance) that correlate with autonomic hyperarousal, sustained cardiovascular reactivity, and somatic symptomatology.

2. Keywords

Behavioral Anger Response Questionnaire, BARQ, anger coping, emotion regulation, Direct Anger-Out, Assertion, Rumination, Diffusion, Avoidance, Social Support-Seeking, psychometrics, health psychology, somatic complaints, pediatric assessment.

3. Authors

The theoretical and empirical conceptualization of the multidimensional anger coping architecture embodied in the Behavioral Anger Response Questionnaire (BARQ) was spearheaded by clinical and health psychologists seeking an expanded taxonomy beyond traditional dichotomous frameworks:

• Wolfgang Linden, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Clinical and Health Psychology at the University of British Columbia (Vancouver, Canada). A leading international authority in behavioral medicine, cardiovascular psychophysiology, and the clinical management of hypertension and anger-hostility syndromes.
• Barbara E. Hogan, Ph.D. — University of British Columbia; specialist in behavioral medicine, dyadic social support mechanisms, and physiological stress reactivity.
• Thomas Rutledge, Ph.D. — Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and VA San Diego Healthcare System; investigator in behavioral cardiology, psychological factors in cardiovascular morbidity, and evidence-based interventions.
• Anne C. Miers, Ph.D. — Institute of Psychology, Developmental and Educational Psychology Unit, Leiden University, The Netherlands. Co-developer and lead investigator of the pediatric, adolescent, and developmental adaptations of the BARQ.
• Carolien Rieffe, Ph.D. — Professor of Developmental Psychology, Leiden University, and visiting professor at the University College London (UCL) Institute of Education; director of the “Focus on Emotions” research laboratory specializing in typical and atypical emotional competence, somatic complaints, and social-emotional development.
• Mark Meerum Terwogt, Ph.D. — Department of Developmental Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands; pioneer in children’s emotional awareness, metacognition, and cognitive appraisal systems.

Note regarding clinical source attributions: Clinical literature frequently associates clinical anger management training and practitioner guides with Ronald T. Potter-Efron, MSW, Ph.D., and Patricia S. Potter-Efron, M.S. (authors of applied clinical handbooks on anger profiles and aggression). However, the psychometrically standardized, peer-reviewed, multi-factor research instrument known internationally as the BARQ was established, psychometrically validated, and distributed within behavioral science literature by Linden, Hogan, Rutledge, and colleagues (2003) and adapted for developmental psychopathology by Miers, Rieffe, Meerum Terwogt, and Linden (2007).

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Behavioral Anger Response Questionnaire is to provide an empirical, multidimensional, and ecologically valid assessment of the discrete behavioral strategies individuals enact when confronted with anger-inducing events. For decades, clinical and health psychologists relied heavily on the classic two-factor dichotomy of anger expression: “anger-in” (suppressing, swallowing, or internalizing angry feelings) and “anger-out” (directing angry feelings outward through aggressive verbal outbursts, physical assault, or destructive tantrums). While foundational instruments like Charles Spielberger’s State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI) advanced the field significantly, subsequent empirical and psychophysiological investigations revealed profound limitations inherent to this dualistic model.

First, the traditional “anger-in” conceptualization conflated entirely different behavioral phenomena: passive avoidance (deliberately dropping the issue or pretending it did not happen), cognitive-emotional rumination (perseveratively replaying the grievance in working memory), and constructive emotional cooling. Second, “anger-out” traditionally conflated aggressive, hostile outbursts (screaming, cursing, throwing objects) with assertive, non-hostile communication aimed at constructive problem resolution. The BARQ was purposefully designed to disaggregate these functionally distinct behavioral repertoires into six clear, empirically supported response styles.

From a clinical and diagnostic standpoint, the BARQ serves several crucial functions:

• Identification of Dysfunctional Anger Regulation: It enables clinicians to differentiate patients who express anger through destructive hostility (Direct Anger-Out) from those who appear outwardly calm but engage in sustained internal perseveration (Rumination). This is pivotal because both profiles carry elevated risk for essential hypertension and cardiovascular reactivity, but require diametrically opposed psychological interventions.
• Distinguishing Assertiveness from Hostile Aggression: In cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), patients often misunderstand assertiveness, believing that any outward expression of anger equates to hostility. The BARQ isolates Assertion as an adaptive, calm, problem-solving modality, providing a baseline metric and an explicit target for social skills and interpersonal effectiveness training.
• Evaluating Health Psychology Outcomes in Somatic Complaints: In developmental psychopathology, children and adolescents frequently convert unexpressed or unmodulated negative affect into functional somatic symptoms (e.g., recurrent abdominal pain, tension headaches, fatigue). The BARQ allows developmental pediatricians and school psychologists to trace somatic complaints back to specific anger coping profiles—notably elevated rumination and avoidant coping coupled with deficient assertiveness.
• Treatment Planning and Progress Monitoring: By administering the BARQ across therapeutic interventions, clinicians can track whether interventions reduce destructive responses (Direct Anger-Out, Rumination) while concurrently augmenting adaptive coping repertoires (Assertion, Diffusion, and constructive Social Support-Seeking).

5. Psychological Construct

The Behavioral Anger Response Questionnaire operationalizes anger coping as a behavioral, cognitive, and interpersonal taxonomy comprised of six distinct, correlated dimensions. Each dimension captures an identifiable behavioral coping mechanism that an individual employs during or immediately following an anger-provoking incident:

Direct Anger-Out

This subscale captures overt, antagonistic, and hostile behavioral manifestations directed either toward the provocateur or the physical environment. Behaviors categorized under this construct include explosive verbal aggression (cursing, shouting, saying nasty things), threatening nonverbal behaviors (clenching fists, aggressive hand gesturing), physical aggression (hitting, shoving, pushing), and physical property damage (slamming doors, striking walls or objects). Psychologically, Direct Anger-Out reflects poor inhibitory control, heightened sympathetic nervous system arousal, high impulsivity, and hostile attributional biases. While it temporarily discharges acute physiological tension, it reliably escalates interpersonal conflict and is a documented behavioral risk factor for cardiovascular pathology and social dysfunction.

Assertion

Assertion represents an adaptive, emotionally regulated, and socially competent approach to interpersonal conflict. In stark contrast to Direct Anger-Out, Assertion involves deliberate emotional de-escalation prior to verbal engagement. The individual waits until intense autonomic arousal has subsided, engages in cognitive reappraisal, and subsequently communicates their emotional state and perspective to the provocateur in a calm, clear, and non-threatening manner. The explicit psychological intent of assertion is problem resolution, boundary setting, and relational repair rather than retribution, intimidation, or interpersonal dominance.

Social Support-Seeking

This dimension operationalizes the interpersonal, affiliative management of anger. Rather than immediately confronting the source of provocation or internalizing the affect, the respondent seeks out trusted social ties (such as close friends, romantic partners, or family members) to discuss the grievance, disclose distress, seek validation, and obtain objective advice. While social support-seeking can buffer against psychological distress, its adaptiveness depends heavily on whether the interpersonal exchange facilitates constructive cognitive reframing or devolves into co-rumination and the mutual amplification of perceived hostility.

Diffusion

Diffusion encompasses behavioral self-regulation strategies aimed at discharging negative emotional energy, dissipating physiological hyperarousal, and shifting attentional focus through alternative distracting or expressive activities. These behaviors include physical exercise (working off anger through sports, running, or gym workouts), creative and expressive outlets (playing musical instruments, painting, creative writing), and deliberate engagement in solitary tasks or entertainment (video games, computer tasks, immersing oneself in solitary projects). Psychophysiologically, diffusion functions as a deliberate behavioral dampener that down-regulates autonomic stress reactivity by channeling arousal into safe, non-confrontational motor and cognitive pathways.

Avoidance

Avoidance reflects a passive, dismissive, or suppressive regulatory posture. Rather than resolving the underlying conflict or processing the emotional disruption, the individual attempts to minimize the significance of the event (“telling myself it doesn’t matter”), cognitively force the event out of consciousness, or keep silent solely to avoid interpersonal confrontation (“I don’t want to cause trouble, so I just wait to feel better”). Avoidant coping is functionally distinct from assertion: it achieves superficial peace at the expense of genuine conflict resolution, leaving underlying boundary violations or systemic interpersonal dysfunctions entirely unaddressed.

Rumination

Rumination represents a perseverative, repetitive, and maladaptive cognitive focus on the anger-inducing event, its causes, its consequences, and associated feelings of indignation. The individual repeatedly mentalizes revenge scenarios (“imagining how I could get even”), obsesses over missed opportunities for retaliation (“thinking about what I wish I had done”), and experiences prolonged post-event emotional distress. Unlike cognitive problem-solving, rumination is passive and cyclical, maintaining high autonomic activation, sustaining elevated blood pressure, prolonging negative affect, and hindering adaptive emotional recovery.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Behavioral Anger Response Questionnaire is conceptually anchored at the intersection of several foundational paradigms in psychology: the transactional model of stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), modern emotion regulation theory (Gross, 1998), and psychophysiological models of cardiovascular reactivity and behavioral hostility.

The Transactional Model of Coping

According to the transactional stress paradigm formulated by Richard S. Lazarus and Susan Folkman, stress and emotional arousal are products of a dynamic transaction between the person and the environment. When an individual encounters an environmental stressor (such as a provocative, disrespectful, or thwarting act), they execute a primary appraisal (evaluating whether the event threatens their well-being, goals, or self-esteem) followed by a secondary appraisal (evaluating their available coping resources and behavioral options). Coping is formally defined as the cognitive and behavioral efforts deployed to manage specific internal or external demands appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person.

Traditional anger inventories failed to mirror Lazarus and Folkman’s classic distinction between problem-focused coping (altering the troubled person-environment relationship) and emotion-focused coping (regulating the emotional distress itself). The BARQ directly rectifies this theoretical omission. Within the BARQ framework, Assertion represents prototypical problem-focused coping; Diffusion represents active, constructive emotion-focused coping; Avoidance represents passive emotion-focused distancing; and Rumination represents maladaptive, perseverative cognitive processing.

Gross’s Process Model of Emotion Regulation

The BARQ also maps precisely onto James J. Gross’s process model of emotion regulation, which categorizes regulatory strategies along the timeline of the unfolding emotional response: situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive reappraisal, and response modulation. Within the BARQ’s architecture:

• Attentional Deployment: Evident in the Diffusion and Avoidance subscales, where the individual diverts attentional resources away from the anger trigger toward sports, music, digital media, or active cognitive forgetting.
• Cognitive Reappraisal and Modification: Reflected in the Assertion subscale, where the individual waits for autonomic de-escalation, cognitively re-evaluates the event (“I carefully think it over”), and initiates constructive situation modification.
• Maladaptive Attentional Fixation: Operationalized by the Rumination subscale, which represents an inability to disengage attentional focus from threat cues and perceived injustices.
• Response Modulation: Directly captures the contrast between explosive behavioral output (Direct Anger-Out) and deliberate, controlled expressive withholding until a problem-solving dialogue can occur.

Cardiovascular Reactivity and the Psychophysiological Hostility Paradigm

A critical driving impetus behind Wolfgang Linden and colleagues’ development of the BARQ was the empirical inadequacy of the classic “cardiovascular risk hypothesis.” Early psychosomatic medicine posited that either chronic suppression (“anger-in”) or explosive hostility (“anger-out”) elevated risk for coronary heart disease, atherosclerosis, and essential hypertension. However, meta-analyses revealed contradictory and modest effect sizes. Linden and colleagues demonstrated that treating anger expression as a monolithic dualism obscured the true physiological culprits. By isolating non-hostile Assertion and adaptive Diffusion from hostile Direct Anger-Out and perseverative Rumination, the BARQ framework aligns with modern psychophysiological evidence demonstrating that it is the duration of cardiovascular reactivity—prolonged primarily through rumination and hostile interpersonal encounters—that leads to sustained endothelial shear stress, sympathetic overactivation, and cardiac morbidity.

7. Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the Behavioral Anger Response Questionnaire has been rigorously demonstrated across diverse adult and pediatric populations:

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was established through systematic psychometric evaluations conducted by Linden et al. (2003) and replicated by Miers, Rieffe, Meerum Terwogt, Cowan, and Linden (2007). In competitive model testing, researchers compared the theoretical six-factor model against alternative nested models (including a single-factor general anger model and a traditional two-factor “anger-in vs. anger-out” model). Structural equation modeling definitively confirmed that the six-factor architecture offered a statistically superior fit to empirical covariance matrices across all standard goodness-of-fit indices.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent and discriminant validity has been substantiated through correlations with well-established psychometric benchmarks:

• State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI): The BARQ Direct Anger-Out subscale correlates strongly and positively with Spielberger’s STAXI Trait Anger (r ≈ .58 to .67) and STAXI Anger-Out (r ≈ .62 to .71), demonstrating high convergent validity. Importantly, the BARQ Assertion subscale demonstrates non-significant or weak negative correlations with STAXI Anger-Out (r ≈ −.12 to −.22) and moderate positive correlations with STAXI Anger Control (r ≈ .45 to .56), demonstrating that assertiveness is clearly distinguished from aggressive hostility.
• Neuroticism and Negative Affectivity: The BARQ Rumination subscale correlates substantially with the Neuroticism domain of the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and the Ruminative Responses Scale (RRS; r ≈ .52 to .64), confirming its capture of perseverative negative affect. Conversely, Assertion exhibits robust positive correlations with Agreeableness and Conscientiousness.
• Social Desirability: Correlations with Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scales remain uniformly low to negligible across the subscales (|r| < .18), verifying that the self-reported coping behaviors are not merely artifacts of social impression management.

Predictive and Criterion Validity: Somatic Complaints and Health Metrics

In a landmark developmental study by Miers, Rieffe, Meerum Terwogt, Cowan, and Linden (2007) investigating 418 children and adolescents, the BARQ demonstrated powerful criterion validity in predicting somatic complaints (headaches, stomachaches, dizziness, musculoskeletal pain). Hierarchical regression models revealed that anger mood alone was insufficient to explain somatic symptom severity; rather, the specific coping strategies measured by the BARQ accounted for significant incremental variance. Specifically, elevated Rumination and high Avoidance significantly predicted elevated somatic complaints, whereas high Assertion acted as a protective buffer. Furthermore, in clinical behavioral cardiology studies, high scores on BARQ Direct Anger-Out and Rumination consistently predicted prolonged ambulatory systolic blood pressure recovery times following real-world stress triggers.

8. Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Behavioral Anger Response Questionnaire has been evaluated across multiple independent investigations, encompassing adult university cohorts, community clinical samples, and pediatric/adolescent school samples. The scale consistently exhibits robust internal consistency reliability and temporal stability:

Internal Consistency Reliability

Across the published empirical literature, the internal consistency of the BARQ subscales, quantified via Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (α) and McDonald’s omega (ω), falls reliably within acceptable to excellent psychometric standards. In the standard validation study by Miers et al. (2007), the mean Cronbach’s alpha across all six subscales was α = .76, with individual subscale values ranging from .65 to .85:

• Direct Anger-Out: Cronbach’s α ranges from .80 to .85 (indicating high internal consistency for hostile/aggressive behaviors).
• Assertion: Cronbach’s α ranges from .78 to .84 (reflecting unified measurement of calm, problem-focused communication).
• Social Support-Seeking: Cronbach’s α ranges from .75 to .82.
• Diffusion: Cronbach’s α ranges from .70 to .76.
• Avoidance: Cronbach’s α ranges from .65 to .73 (the lower bound reflecting the natural behavioral heterogeneity within avoidant and minimizing behaviors).
• Rumination: Cronbach’s α ranges from .76 to .83.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability assessments over test-retest intervals spanning 3 to 6 weeks in non-clinical cohorts have demonstrated high test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), typically ranging between r = .71 and r = .83 across the subscales. This verifies that while the BARQ measures coping responses to situational anger triggers, these responses reflect stable, trait-like behavioral dispositions in the absence of targeted psychological or behavioral interventions.

9. Factor Analysis

The internal latent structure of the Behavioral Anger Response Questionnaire has been exhaustively analyzed using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across adolescent and adult cohorts.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial structural investigations performed by Linden and colleagues utilized principal components analysis and principal axis factoring with oblique rotations (Promax and Oblimin), reflecting the theoretical assumption that distinct anger coping behaviors are naturally correlated in ecological settings. Scree plot analyses, Kaiser-Guttman eigenvalues (> 1.0), and parallel analysis consistently pointed to a six-factor solution. Across factor matrices, items loaded strongly onto their designated latent constructs (primary factor loadings λ ≥ .45 to .82), with minimal problematic cross-loadings (≤ .25 on non-target factors).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

Subsequent confirmatory investigations (e.g., Miers et al., 2007) tested the theoretical six-factor model against competing structural configurations. Goodness-of-fit was assessed utilizing standard structural equation modeling indices: the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR).

As demonstrated in empirical fitting procedures, the theoretical six-factor structure yielded an excellent fit to observed data (RMSEA = .044, CFI = .92, SRMR = .052), heavily outperforming the 1-factor and 2-factor alternatives. Standardized factor loadings across all items were robust: Direct Anger-Out items (λ = .51 to .84), Assertion items (λ = .56 to .78), Social Support-Seeking items (λ = .58 to .79), Diffusion items (λ = .44 to .71), Avoidance items (λ = .46 to .68), and Rumination items (λ = .59 to .82). Inter-factor correlations were low to moderate, substantiating that while the six coping styles operate under an overarching emotion regulation umbrella, they maintain distinct psychometric independence.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Formal Tool Name: Behavioral Anger Response Questionnaire (BARQ)
• Assessment Type: Standardized self-report psychometric rating scale / behavioral questionnaire
• Target Population: Children, adolescents, and adults (standard developmental adaptations appropriate for ages 9 through adulthood)
• Item Count: 37 items (structured across 6 distinct coping subscales)
• Administration Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes
• Subscale Composition:
  • Direct Anger-Out: Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (7 items measuring overt verbal, physical, and object-directed aggression)
  • Assertion: Items 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 (6 items measuring calm, reflective, problem-solving communication)
  • Social Support-Seeking: Items 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 (6 items measuring venting, advice-seeking, and relational sharing)
  • Diffusion: Items 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 (6 items measuring physical exercise, creative tasks, and solitary distractions)
  • Avoidance: Items 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 (6 items measuring cognitive minimization, forced forgetting, and passive conflict avoidance)
  • Rumination: Items 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 (6 items measuring perseveration, revenge ideation, and prolonged distress)
• Standard Response Scale: Polytomous 3-point frequency scale (standardized in developmental and pediatric literature):
  • 1 = not true
  • 2 = sometimes true
  • 3 = often true

  (Note: Adult health psychology formulations occasionally employ a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree / never to 5 = strongly agree / always).

• Scoring Rules:
  • Each subscale score is calculated either by summing the numerical weights of the designated items or by computing the mean score (sum of items divided by the number of items in that subscale).
  • There are no reverse-coded items; all statements are scored in the direction of endorsement of that specific behavioral coping strategy.
  • Mean subscale scores range from 1.00 to 3.00 (on the 3-point format). Higher scores directly reflect greater habitual deployment of that specific anger coping strategy.
  • A global aggregate score is not psychometrically recommended, as summing across antithetical coping strategies (e.g., combining Assertion with Direct Anger-Out) obliterates meaningful clinical variance. Profiling individual subscale trajectories is the standard diagnostic procedure.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Behavioral Anger Response Questionnaire was formally established and published in the peer-reviewed psychometric literature by Wolfgang Linden and colleagues in 2003 (Emotion, 3(1), 12–29) and subsequently refined for developmental, adolescent, and health-related contexts by Anne C. Miers, Carolien Rieffe, and colleagues in 2007 (Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 653–664). The questionnaire and its developmental variants were created as open-access academic instruments for non-commercial scientific research, developmental studies, and clinical psychological assessment.

The instrument is made widely available to the scholarly community through institutional repositories and academic developmental research portals, including the Focus on Emotions research laboratory (Leiden University; www.focusonemotions.nl) and the University of London Institute of Education repository. No licensing fees or purchase royalties are required for non-commercial academic research, pedagogical use, or clinical training evaluations. Investigators and clinicians seeking to reproduce, translate, or incorporate the instrument into commercial electronic medical records (EMR) or digital commercial health platforms should request formal permission from the lead author, Dr. Carolien Rieffe or Dr. Wolfgang Linden.

12. References

• Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• Linden, W., Hogan, B. E., Rutledge, T., Chawla, A., Lenz, J. W., & Leung, D. (2003). There is more to anger coping than “in” or “out”. Emotion, 3(1), 12–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.12
• Miers, A. C., Rieffe, C., Meerum Terwogt, M., Cowan, R., & Linden, W. (2007). The relation between anger coping strategies, anger mood and somatic complaints in children and adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(4), 653–664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-007-9120-9
• Potter-Efron, R. T., & Potter-Efron, P. S. (2006). Letting go of anger: The eleven most common anger styles and what to do about them (2nd ed.). New Harbinger Publications.
• Rieffe, C., Meerum Terwogt, M., & Bosch, J. D. (2004). Emotional awareness and internalising symptoms in children. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1(4), 369–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405620444000174
• Spielberger, C. D. (1999). STAXI-2: State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2: Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

13. Items of the Scale