The Importance of Understanding Anger in the Clinical Assessment of Violence

Day, Andrew; Fernández, Ephrem

doi:10.1002/9781119315933.ch12

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been implicated in conflict in close relationships (e.g., Lemay et al, 2012), in the workplace (Kelloway et al, 2006), and even in the therapeutic setting (Scott et al, 2016). At the very extreme, anger may culminate in aggression and violence (Chereji et al, 2012; Day & Fernandez, 2020). Dysregulated anger is a major symptom in at least four psychiatric disorders: Intermittent Explosive Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder (Fernandez & Johnson, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anger treatment via CBAT delivered remotely: Outcomes on psychometric and self‐monitored measures of anger

Fernandez,

Perez,

Sun

et al. 2023

Clin Psychology and Psychoth

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of anger treatment have often reported on reappraisal and relaxation techniques delivered in person to forensic and psychiatric samples. The present study evaluated an integrative programme of cognitive–behavioural affective therapy (CBAT) delivered remotely to chronic pain sufferers with comorbid anger. Volunteers (N = 54) were randomly assigned to either CBAT or an Emotional Education (EE) group, both receiving hour‐long videorecorded sessions twice a week for 4 weeks plus weekly calls by telephone. At 1‐month post‐treatment, follow‐up was conducted. Outcomes were measured using the Anger Parameters Scale (APS) and its five subscales (frequency, duration, intensity, latency and threshold) as well as daily self‐monitored anger logs. As hypothesized, pre‐ to post‐treatment decline in APS total scores was significant for CBAT, Hedges' g = 0.65, 95% CI [0.14, 1.16] but nonsignificant and small for EE, g = 0.17, CI [−0.41, 0.75]. At the primary endpoint (post‐treatment), APS total scores were significantly lower for CBAT than for EE. Treatment gains were maintained till follow‐up. On all five APS subscales, pre‐post effect sizes were medium‐sized for CBAT and generally small for EE. This picture was mirrored in the self‐monitored frequency, duration and intensity of anger. Findings support the efficacy of CBAT over time, its comparative efficacy over EE and its ecological generalizability. Future research could expand sample size, reduce sample imbalance, extend follow‐up and strengthen treatment potency with more sessions. The present study renews enthusiasm for teletherapy and is the first to demonstrate CBAT efficacy in treating maladaptive anger in the chronic pain population.

show abstract