Method Study 1b

4.2.1 Participants

The same participant sample as employed in Study 1a was utilised for the current study. As mentioned previously, following ethical approval form Queen Margaret University’s ethics panel (see Appendix 1a), data were collected from a sample of 270 individuals (80.7% female; 56.5% students; 86.7% English as first language) with an average age of 29.2 years old (SD = 9.78; range = 18-63 years). This sample size was in line with an a-priori power analysis, conducted using G* Power 3.1, which suggested a sample of at least 92 was required to achieve 80% power in detecting a medium effect size in the regression and mediation analysis (based on an alpha of .05). This power analysis was based on 5 predictors (attachment anxiety,

161 attachment avoidance, anger suppression, under-regulation and anger control). As with study 1a, a medium effect size was expected given the literature showing a range of small to medium effects in the relationship between attachment and emotion/emotion regulation related variables across a range of domains (e.g.

Cooper & Shaver, 1998; David, Shaver & Vernon, 2003; Kafetsois, 2004; Meredith, Strong & Feeney, 2006; Trub & Starks, 2017).

4.2.2 Procedure

The data for Study 1b was collected simultaneously alongside the data for Study 1a.

As such, alongside the additional measures below, the attachment measure used in Study 1a (ECR-R; Fraley et al., 2000b) was also utilised for the current study. As outlined below, the STAXI-2 was also used in this study, but different subscales were analysed in line with the aims of this study (i.e. to investigate anger regulation strategies, as opposed to levels trait anger). The information sheet, consent form and debrief sheet were displayed as outlined in Study 1a (see appendices 2a, 3a and 4a).

4.2.3 Measures

(i) Adult Attachment: Experiences in Close Relationships Revised scale (ECR-R; Fraley et al., 2000b)

162 As outlined in Study 1a, the ECR-R is a 36-tem self-report tool that measures adult attachment two dimensions: attachment anxiety (e.g. I often worry that my partner will not want to stay with me) and attachment avoidance (e.g. I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners) (Brennan et al., 1998). In the present study, the attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance subscales demonstrated strong alpha coefficients of α = .94 and α = .95, respectively.

(ii) Anger: State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 (STAXI-2; Spielberger et al., 1999)

In this study, the anger expression subscale of the STAXI-2 was used to assess the use of specific anger regulation strategies. The anger expression scale has two sub-scales: Anger expression and anger control. These scales assess four relatively independent traits:

• Anger Expression Out (AX-Out) – a tendency to under-regulate angry feelings such that they are expressed externally towards other persons or objects in the environment (e.g. “I strike out at whatever infuriates me”)

• Anger Expression In (AX-In) – a tendency to suppress angry feelings (e.g. “I tend to harbour grudges that I don’t tell anyone about”)

• Anger Control Out (AC-Out) – attempts to control angry feelings by preventing the expression towards other persons or objects in the environment (e.g. “I control my urge to express my angry feelings”)

• Anger Control In (AC-In) – attempts to control angry feelings by calming down or

163 cooling off (e.g. “I take a deep breath and relax”)

For the purposes of this study AC-In and AC-Out were subsumed into a single scale of anger control (referred to here as anger control). Furthermore, for clarity of reading, and to allow for ease of comparison with previous literature, the AX-Out and AX-In variables will be referred to herein as anger under-regulation (AX-Out) and anger suppression (AX-In). Participants responded to the above items on a 4-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 4 (almost always), reflecting how they

“generally react or behave when angry or furious”. Culhane and Morera (2010) proposed that population norms for these subscales fall around 17.2 for suppression, 15.8 for under-regulation, and 22.7 (averaged) for anger control, and found internal consistencies of α = .73 for suppression, α = .75 for under-regulation, and α = .87 and α = .85 for AC-In and AC-Out, respectively. To the researcher’s knowledge, this is the first study to combine the AC-In and AC-Out scores to reflect comprehensive anger control, and thus there is no previous internal consistency data to report for this item. However, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for these subscales in the present study were as follows: suppression (α = .81); under-regulation (α = .71); and anger control (α = .88), all demonstrating good internal consistency and confirming the validity of the combined anger control scale. Licensing permissions were received from PAR Inc., and a copyright notice was displayed on the survey window (see Appendix 5).

164 (iii) Aggression: Aggression Questionnaire (AQ; Buss & Warren, 2000)

The AQ is a 34-item questionnaire that measures physical aggression (e.g. Once in a while I can't control the urge to strike another person), verbal aggression (e.g. I have threatened people I know), hostility (e.g. I wonder why sometimes I feel so bitter about things) and anger (e.g. Some of my friends think I'm a hothead). However, as dispositional anger was being measured by the trait anger subscale of the STAXI-2, the anger subscale of the AQ was not applied in this study. Scores on this questionnaire can also be combined to provide a total aggression score, however, this was not used in the present study as specific facets of aggression were of more interest. Participants respond to items on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (completely like me). Higher scores reflect higher levels of each construct. Scores can range from 0-144, and norms, as established by Buss and Perry in a sample of 1,253 undergraduate students, are 24.3 (for males) and 17.9 (for females) for physical aggression, 15.2 (for males) and 13.5 (for females) for verbal aggression and 21.3 (for males) and 20.2 (for females) for hostility (Buss & Perry, 1992). An evaluation of the validity and reliability of the AQ revealed alpha values of α = .85 for physical aggression, α = .72 for verbal aggression, α = .77 for hostility and α = .83 for anger (Harris, 1997). In the present study, the internal consistencies of these subscales were as follows: physical aggression, α = .84; verbal aggression, α

= .84; and hostility, α = .89.

165 4.2.4 Analytical strategy

The data for this study were analysed using SPSS 21. Firstly, data screening took place, to identify any outliers and determine the distribution of the date (outlined below). Then descriptive statistics and correlations were conducted to investigate the univariate relationships between attachment dimensions, anger regulation processes and aggression variables. This stage of the analysis addressed hypotheses 2.1 (that attachment anxiety would be associated with the under-regulation of anger) and 2.2 (that attachment avoidance would be associated with anger suppression). Secondly, to address hypotheses 2.3 (that attachment anxiety would predict variance in physical aggression scores), 2.4 (that attachment avoidance would predict variance in physical aggression scores) and 2.5 (that attachment avoidance would predict variance in hostility scores), multiple regression analyses were performed to investigate the attachment dimensions are predictors of the aggression variables. Finally, mediation analyses were conducted to identify whether specific anger regulation processes mediated the relationships between the attachment dimensions and the aggression variables. This final analysis addressed hypotheses 2.6 (that the under-regulation of anger would mediate the relationship between attachment anxiety and aggression variables) and 2.7 (that anger suppression would mediate the relationship between attachment avoidance and aggression variables).

166