TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study 1

Situation Analysis 1

Theoretical Framework 2

Statement of the Problem 2

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

Research Design 3

Sources of Data 3

Data Collection 3

Data Analysis 4

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

CHAPTER 4:

Summary

Conclusion

Recommendation

Literature Cited

Curriculum Vitae

Appendices
 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Anger is an emotional state that varies in intensity from mild irritation to intense fury

and rage according to Charles Spielberger, PhD, a psychologist who specializes in the study of

anger. According to Novaco, R. W. (2016) anger is an affective response to survival threats or

otherwise stressful experiences. Can be useful in directing attention to violations of one’s

values, beliefs, or rights (Thomas, 1995).

Anger is experienced by everyone, but response to anger is different from person to

person (E.A. Munoz, 2005). There are multiple contributing factors that determine a person's

response to anger. It could be external or internal events, in most cases both.

SITUATION ANALYSIS

Research regarding anger as well as the types of how individual express it are vital to

our understanding of human behaviour. For the reason it is a daily aspect of life, however

people see it as shameful or sinful or as a healthy release of emotion. Continual research need

for this matter because society must recognize it as a common response yet different ways of

expressing to a situation or event. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine the anger

expression style of students, their commonalities as well as differences and level on each type

of expression.
 2

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Anger is a natural emotion that everybody experience from time to time which is

characterized by a strong feeling of displeasure and sometimes a desire for revenge, usually

triggered by various external events. Everyone experience it but different ways that’s what we

call anger expression style. It has two major scales, the Aggressive and Non- aggressive

expression style.

Firstly, Aggressive anger is powerful, visible, and immediate reaction (Murphy, T. D.,

& Oberlin, L., 2016). Human beings need to be able to aggress in certain situations, and nature

has provided us with these skills (Buss & Duntley, 2006). Noisy arguing, verbal assault,

physical assault- people and – objects are considered forms of aggressive. Examples of which

include expressing your feelings, needs, and ideas at the expense of others. Moreover, stand

up for their rights but ignore the rights of others; they may dominate or humiliate other people.

While this behavior is expressive, it is also defensive, hostile, and self-defeating.

Secondly, the Non- aggressive anger. Control, reciprocal communication, and time out

are considered forms of this dimension. Non-aggressive persons make their own anger be

controlled, straightforward when it comes in explaining their side but sometimes they refuse to

speak. Characteristics of it includes expressing feelings, needs, ideas, and rights in ways that

don’t violate the rights of others.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

1. What is the frequency and percentage distributions of the college students’

demographic properties?

2. What is the anger level of students for both anger styles?

3. Are there significant differences on anger expression style of students based on their

demographic properties?
 3

CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH DESIGN

This study used a quantitative research design. And is mostly conducted in the

behavioral sciences using the statistical methods. Due to the statistics, this research method

provides a wide scope of data collection. Results achieved are numerical and are thus, fair in

most cases.

SOURCES OF DATA

The study focuses on 370 college students who took part in the research. The data was

collected from Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University- Mid La Union Campus.

DATA COLLECTION

Random proportional sampling were used, this type falls under probability sampling in

which one of a type of sampling methods. In this method, a large population of students in

DMMMSU – MLUC were divided into various colleges, and samples were randomly chosen

from them. A total of 370 students were participated in the study and the collection of data

were by means of questionnaires.

 4

DATA ANALYSIS

The data collected in line with the purpose of the study are processed by IBM SPSS-20

and STANSCORE program. Through descriptive statistics, the frequency and percentage

distributions of demographic properties of the university students are inspected. The

determination of anger level of university students for both anger styles were shown through

descriptive statistics. With the use of independent sample t-test analysis, the differences

between on both anger styles of scale used were observed according to gender of students. On

the other hand, with the help of One-Way ANOVA, the differences between on the anger styles

of scale used were looked at according to the ages and colleges of the students.
 5

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1. The frequency and percentage distributions of students’ demographic properties.

Table 1. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of students’ demographic properties

Properties Frequency %

Male 214 57.8

Gender Female 156 42.2
Total 370 100
COE 70 18.9
CIT 24 6.5
CE 55 14.9
ICJE 12 3.2
College
CAS 32 8.6
COM 61 16.5
COT 116 31.4
Total 370 100
18-20 287 77.6
21-23 77 20.8
Age group
24-26 6 1.6
Total 370 100

In Table 1, when the gender distributions of the students are examined, there are 214

(57.8 %) males and 156 (42.2%) females. Students sample size were largely consist of male

gender. According to the college variable, arranged from highest to least sample size, College

of Technology has 116 (31.4%), College of Engineering has 70 (18.9%), College of

Management 61 (16.5%), College of Education has 55 (14.9%), College of Information

Technology has 24 (6.5%), College of Arts and Sciences 32 (8.6%), and College of ICJE 12

(3.2%). When the age distributions of the students are studied, students at “18-20” years old

has the largest sample size of 287 (77.6%), next to rank were students at “21-23” years old with

a sample size of 77 (20.8%) and 6 (1.6%) sample size for students age from “24 and over.”
 6

2. The determination of anger level of students for both anger styles.

Table 2.1 Anger levels of students for both anger styles

Indicators N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation DR

Item 9 370 1 4 2.21 .909 L
Item 12 370 1 4 2.28 .924 L
Item 14 370 1 4 2.12 .915 L
Item 16 370 1 4 2.06 .860 L
Item 20 370 1 4 2.32 .833 L
Item 23 370 1 4 1.72 .871 VL
Item 24 370 1 4 1.74 .936 VL
Item 25 370 1 4 2.13 .897 L
Item 34 370 1 4 1.89 .862 L
Item 41 370 1 4 1.92 .951 L
Item 45 370 1 4 2.20 .923 L
Aggressive Item 52 370 1 4 2.16 .982 L
Item 58 370 1 4 2.39 .982 L
Item 60 370 1 4 2.33 .919 L
Item 64 370 1 4 2.09 .967 L
Item 67 370 1 4 2.22 .966 L
Item 72 370 1 4 2.18 .954 L
Item 73 370 1 4 2.39 1.015 L
Item 74 370 1 4 2.38 1.061 L

Total 370 Grand mean 2.14 L

Item 11 370 1 4 2.92 .831 H

Item 19 370 1 4 2.75 .857 H
Item 33 370 1 4 2.67 .858 H
Item 35 370 1 4 2.73 .879 H
Item 40 370 1 4 2.76 .876 H
Item 42 370 1 4 2.93 .891 H
Item 46 370 1 4 2.73 .978 H
Factror 2 Item 49 370 1 4 2.92 .830 H
Item 56 370 1 4 2.92 .878 H
Item 59 370 1 4 2.94 .943 H
Item 61 370 1 4 2.83 .849 H
Item 62 370 1 4 2.91 .877 H

Total 370 Grand mean 2.83 H

Legend: VH – Very High, H – High, L – Low, VL – Very Low

Rating Scale: Descriptive Ratings:

3.30 – 4.00 Very High
2.50 – 3.29 High
1.80 – 2.49 Low
1.00 – 1.79 Very Low
 7

In Table 2, it is determined that the total average of students’ response on items belong

to the aggressive factor were rated “Low” as it represented by the grand mean of 2.14 which is

in-between of the Low scale (1.80- 2.49), and compared with maximum (4) and minimum (1)

values. With that result, can safely conclude that the 370 students were low in aggression. Also,

it is seen that the total average of students’ response on items belong to the non- aggressive

factor were rated “High” as it represented by the grand mean of 2.83 which is in-between of

the High scale (2.50- 3.29), and compared with maximum (4), and minimum (1) values. With

that result, can safely conclude that the 370 students were high in non- aggression.

3. Anger expression style differences as to gender.

Table 3.1 T-test table for Aggressive style for both genders
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Lower Upper
t df tailed) Difference Difference Bound Bound
Equal
Aggressive variances .082 368 .935 .01695 .20708 .42417 .42417
assumed

In Table 3.1 shows that on the aggressive style, the p- value (.935) is greater than the

significance level (.05). Therefore, there is no significant difference between the aggression

level of the students as to their gender.

Table 3.2 T-test table for Non- aggressive style for both genders
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Lower Upper
t df tailed) Difference Difference Bound Bound

Non- Equal variances

-.099 368 .921 -.02043 .20651 -.42651 .38565
aggressive assumed
 8

In Table 3.2 shows that on the aggressive style, the p- value (.921) is greater than the

significance level (.05). Therefore, there is no significant difference between the non-

aggression anger level of the students as to their gender.

In contrast with numerous literature regarding this matter, determined that no anger

differences existed between males and females. Although genders may express anger and

respond to situations differently, they generally experience similar levels of anger (Zimprich,

et al 2012). In relation with this study, (E.A. Munoz, 2005) stated that both males’ and females’

reasons for anger were coded as either a relational issue, an attack on one's status/disrespectful

treatment (sexism, racism, etc.), personal or general injustice (betrayal, unfairness, being lied

to), or a minor frustration, such as thwarted plans. The incidences that were caused by attack

on one's status/disrespectful treatment and personal or general injustice were similar in the

number of cases between genders. In short, relational issues were a more common cause of

anger for male and female although how they respond to situations are different, generally they

experience similar anger levels.

4. Anger Expression style differences as to Age groups.

Table 4.1 ANOVA table of results for both anger styles based on age groups

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between
2.959 2 1.479 .390 .677
Groups
Aggressive
Within Groups 1390.868 367 3.790
Total 1393.827 369
Between
67.886 2 33.943 9.583 .000
Non- Groups
aggressive Within Groups 1299.941 367 3.542
Total 1367.827 369
 9

Table 4.2 Tukey test table of results for Non- aggressive style based on age groups
95% Confidence
Mean Interval
(I) Age (J) Age Difference Lower Upper
group group (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Bound Bound

21-23 1.056* .242 .000 .49* 1.62

Non- aggressive 18- 20
24-26 .032 .776 .999 -1.79 1.86

In Table 4.1 in factor 1, with a p-value (.667) that is greater than .05, can be safely conclude

that there’s no significant differences within and between groups as to the first anger expression

style of the respondents. However, Factor 2 with a p- value (.000) that is lesser than the alpha

level (.05). Based on Table 4.2, the difference among the group manifested between the age

groups 18-20 and 21-23 with p-values of (.000) which is greater than significance value of

(.05), meaning there’s significant difference.

In lined with the result, in a project assessing various ages from 18 years old, (Torestad,

1990,) found that in most anger- provoking situations, the subject himself or herself was

wronged, in other words, himself or herself was egocentric. This study has supported that age

variation express their anger aggressively in most cases. However, there is a difference on

expressing anger in non-aggressive way as to age variation. According to a study (Carstensen,

Pasupathi, & Mayr, 1999), involving participants from age 18 to 95 years, confirmed the

decline in frequency of negative emotions with aging, but negative emotions did not decline in

intensity. In addition, According to Torestad (Torestad, 1990) with increasing age, adolescents

showed an altruistic angry or the capacity to be angry in situations in which other people were

badly treated, rather than themselves. According to results, the age groups 21-23 and 18-20 are

significantly different by simpy looking at the means, 18-20 were higher than the 21-23 group.

, the age groups were somehow close to each other, no supporting studies would explain this
 10

but as aforementioned in introduction, external and internal events would affect in expressing

anger. Age and environment affects the individual (E.A. Munoz, 2005).

5. Anger expression style differences as to colleges

Table 5.1 ANOVA table of results for Aggressive anger style based on colleges

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 105.322 6 17.554 4.945 .000

Aggressive
Within Groups 1288.505 363 3.550
Total 1393.827 369

Table 5.2 Tukey test table of results for Aggressive style based on colleges
95% Confidence
Mean Interval
Difference Lower Upper
(I) College (J) College (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Bound Bound

CE -1.572* .422 .004 -2.82 -.32

Aggressive COT
CAS -1.655* .376 .000 -2.77 -.54

The Table 5.1 shows the p-value (.000) which is lesser than the alpha level (.05), this

means that among the colleges some had significant difference. By looking at the Tukey test,

Table 5.2, the evidence of differences among colleges were made visible. COT and CAS with

p-value of (.000), and COT and CE with p-value of (.004). To sum up all, there was statistical

significant difference on factor 1 “aggressive” style based on colleges.

Table 5.3 ANOVA table of results for Non- aggressive anger style based on colleges
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 117.194 6 19.532 5.669 .000
Non- aggressive
Within Groups 1250.633 363 3.445
 11

Total 1367.827 369

Table 5.4 Tukey test table of results for Non- aggressive style based on colleges
95% Confidence
Mean Interval
Difference Lower Upper
(I) College (J) College (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Bound Bound

COT CIT -1.249 .416 .045 -2.48 -.01

Non- COT CE -1.180 .304 .002 -2.08 -.28
aggressive COT ICJE -1.707 .563 .041 -3.38 -.04
COT CAS -1.394 .371 .004 -2.49 -.30
COT COM -1.051* .294 .007 -1.92 -.18

The Table 5.3 shows the p-value (.000) which is lesser than the alpha level (.05), this

means that among the colleges some had significant difference. By looking at the Tukey test,

Table 5.4, the evidence of differences among colleges were made visible. COT and CIT had p-

value of (.045), COT and CE had p-value of (.002), COT and ICJE had p-value of (.041), COT

and CAS had p-value of (.004), and COT and COM had p-value of (.007). With this values,

therefore there were statistical significant differences on factor 2 “non- aggressive” style based

on colleges.

In lined with the result, there is a significant differences for both factors as to college

variation. As per mentioned, the environment affects the individual (E.A. Munoz, 2005). For

the aggressive style, it might be the school or the intensive processing of learning materials or

the surroundings affect the aggressive behaviour of such colleges. Numerous studies

established that stress is one of the contributing factor or a trigger to anger. Students experience

commonly stress on their studies (Novaco, R. W. 2016). On the other hand, for the non-

aggressive type, contributing factors could be the place of the colleges positioned in, influence

of their own religion, self- beliefs, orientation of their respective courses, or individual

differences as aforementioned, response to anger is different from person to person (E.A.

 12

Munoz, 2005), and even age also has a big effect on the differentiation. Students involved are

still components of the colleges. In respect to students’ ages of certain college, study carried

out in 2007, Kesen et al. observed that the reason could be as an individual gets older, s/he

increases the awareness to responsibility. Thus, every college differs from level of expressing

non- aggressive style.

CHAPTER 4

SUMMARY

Anger is an emotion and is experienced commonly by individual. In this study, the

frequency and distribution percentage according to gender, age group, and college of university
 13

students were shown with the help of descriptive statistics and observed that, generally, 370

university students participated on the research.

The anger levels as to factors were determined. With the use of descriptive statistics, it

was found out that on the aggressive style, students’ anger level were at medium level which

means controllability are at medium level. On the other hand, on the non- aggressive style,

students’ controllability were at medium level.

The anger expression style differences as to genders of students, it was found out that,

with the use of independent t- test, there was no gender issues on both factors. Although they

respond differently, but as to experiencing anger level both were similar.

The anger expression style as to age groups of students, when examined with the use

of one way analysis of variance (ANOVA), there was no differences on the first factor of the

scale unlike on the second factor which is the non- aggression style. For the reason age and

environment has a big factor to an individual.

The anger expression style as to colleges where the students enrolled in were tested

their differences by means of one way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Colleges were examined

and had differences for both factors. Due to what they experience on their environment and age

affected the outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Generally, anger expression style differences were found to be statistically significant

according to some variables. The reasons for these differences may stem from situations

individuals encounter, environmental factors and other contributing factors.

 14

RECOMMENDATION

Findings of this study suggest the need for continued exploration of anger styles in

samples of large sample size, diverse ages, not only in college variation but also diverse

culture of students. Moreover, adding some contributing factors on the information section of

questionnaire would be of help to determine effectively what caused their way of expressing

anger towards a situation or event experienced. For these reasons, the purpose of the study

will greatly inform and become aware about anger.

LITERATURES CITED

Novaco, R. W. (2016). Anger. In Stress: Concepts, cognition, emotion, and behavior (pp. 285-

292). Academic Press.

 15

Murphy, T. D., & Oberlin, L. (2016). Overcoming Passive-Aggression, Revised Edition: How

to Stop Hidden Anger from Spoiling Your Relationships, Career, and Happiness. Hachette UK.

Hülya, A., Nilay G., & Gülfer, B., (2016). Determination Of Anger Expression And Anger

Management Styles And An Application On Operating Room Nurses.

Soykan Ç., (2003), “Anger and Anger Management”, Kriz Journal, 11, 2, 19-27.

Thomas, S.P. (2002). Age differences in anger frequency, intensity, and expression. Journal of

the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 8, (2), 44-50.

F. Arslan (2015). Application of trait anger and anger expression styles scale new modelling

on university students from various social and cultural environments. ERR.