Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:03:03.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Metacognitive Anger Processing (MAP) Scale: Preliminary Testing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2015

Stine Bjerrum Moeller*
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen, Denmark
*
Reprint requests to Stine Bjerrum Moeller, Mental Health Centre North Zealand, University of Copenhagen, Dyrehavevej 48, DK 3400 Hilleroed, Denmark. E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract

Background: Few studies have explored the metacognitive components of anger, and at present there is no metacognitive framework on anger incorporating both positive and negative beliefs about anger and distinct maladaptive processing routines, such as rumination. Aims: The aim of the present preliminary studies was to apply a metacognitive framework to anger and put forward a new anger self-report scale, the Metacognitive Anger Processing (MAP) scale, intended as a supplement to existing measures of anger disposition and to enhance anger treatment targets. Method: The new measure was tested in a nonclinical and a clinical sample together with measures of anger and metacognition to establish factor structure, reliability, concurrent, and convergent validity. Results: The MAP showed a reliable factor structure with three factors - Positive Beliefs about anger, Negative Beliefs about anger, and Rumination; good internal reliability, and test-retest reliability. The subscales showed positive correlations with anger and the pattern of correlation with the general metacognitive measure supported the idea that the MAP represents dimensions of metacognition as it relates to anger. Conclusions: The present data indicate that positive as well as negative beliefs are involved in the tendency to ruminate about angry emotions. Clinical interventions may benefit from an exploration of the patient´s experience of anger, as structured by the MAP's factors and their interrelationships. The psychometric properties of the MAP should be further investigated in clinical samples using larger test batteries and objective measures of aggression.

Type
Brief Clinical Reports
Copyright
Copyright © British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Moeller, S. B., Novaco, R. W., Heinola-Nielsen, V. and Hougaard, H. (2015). Validation of the Novaco Anger Scale - Provocation Inventory (Danish) with non-clinical, clinical, and offender samples. Assessment, May, 113.Google Scholar
Novaco, R. W. (2003). The Novaco Anger Scale and Provocation Inventory. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
Novaco, R. W. (2010). Anger and psychopathology. In Potegal, M., Stemmler, G. and Spielberger, C. (Eds.), International Handbook of Anger (pp.465497). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Simpson, C. and Papageorgiou, C. (2003). Metacognitive beliefs about rumination in anger. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 10, 9194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, A. (2000). Emotional Disorders and Metacognition: innovative cognitive therapy. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Wells, A. and Cartwright-Hatton, S. (2004). A short form of the metacognitions questionnaire: properties of the MCQ-30. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 385396.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Moeller supplementary material

Moeller supplementary material 1

Download Moeller supplementary material(File)
File 88.5 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.