|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this study by Deffenbacher et al. was to provide an intervention setting for anger reduction treatment in a process group therapy environment to compare its effectiveness with cognitive-behavioral intervention which was also normally implemented in group settings.
METHODOLOGY:
This study was quasi-experimental. The subjects were gathered through a screening instrument questionnaire administered to four introductory psychology classes of approximately 200 students per class. Subjects who met the inclusion criteria that focused on admissions of inabilities to control anger and wanting intervention were subsequently placed in groups of 10-20 by two of the authors. There were 48 participants (26 male and 22 female). These students were randomly assigned to conditions for cognitive-relaxation counseling (CRC) (14 students), and for process group counseling (PGC) (16 students). Eighteen students were placed in the control condition of no intervention aside from taking assessment tests. All participants were rewarded with 3 hours of university laboratory credit.
Both PGC and CRC treatment sessions consisted of eight weekly, 1-hour group meetings led by an advanced graduate student who was selected because she was an experienced process group counselor. Those students who received CRC intervention attended sessions devoted to cognitive-relaxation coping rationale, progressive relaxation training, and received training in various other relaxation coping skills. The students who received PGC intervention attended sessions focused on a time-limited, problem-focused interactive meeting environment. This environment encouraged participants to explore and discuss their anger and anger-related emotions with each other in a group setting.
General anger was assessed by Likert-type scales, in which increasing scores reflected greater self-reported anger and anger across a range of situations. General-anger expression style, or the ability to suppress anger when provoked, was also measured by a Likert-type scale. Person-specific anger, or anger unique to the individual was assessed by self-reported data, which was later rated by the severity of anger symptoms. State anger and coping were analyzed by a Likert-type scale and a 6-item Coping questionnaire following the presentation of a social provocation through imagery. Lastly, perceived treatment implementation and impact were assessed by evaluation questionnaires drawn from the authors.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The authors found that generally CRC and PGC intervention subjects showed significant anger reduction compared with the control conditions, but did not differ significantly from one another. Thus, both interventions appeared effective. However, the authors also noted that the PGC intervention subjects attended significantly more sessions than did the CRC participants for undisclosed reasons. The authors concluded that their study provided some basis for evaluating the options for using either CRC or PGC interventions. However, the results obtained indicated that the effects for CRC were similar to those found in prior studies by the same researchers using less experienced counselors. The authors suggested that it was a reliable, effective group intervention. The authors cautioned that generalizations to PGC should be more circumspect since in this study the intervention was delivered by a highly experienced counselor in an anger-focused format, and to a group including only angry clients. Although, PGC in that format was effective, results should not be generalized to broader situations.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors advised that careful evaluative outcome research was needed to map the parameters (e.g., counselor experience, focused versus unfocused format, and homogeneous versus heterogeneous group composition) of effective PGC for anger reduction and to see under what conditions the findings of their current study hold up.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado) |