High anger drivers acknowledging problems with driving anger and interest in counseling (high anger/problem [HP] drivers) were compared with high and low anger drivers not acknowledging problems with driving anger and seeking counseling (high and low/nonproblem [HNP and LNP, respectively] drivers). High anger groups reported more anger while driving; aggressive expression of driving anger; aggression and risky behavior; trait anger; impulsiveness; and aggressive, less controlled forms of general anger expression and less adaptive/constructive coping than LNP drivers. HP drivers received more tickets and experienced more minor accidents than LNP drivers. Although high anger drivers did not differ on reported anger, risky behavior, and impulsiveness, HP drives reported greater aggression on 1 measure, greater aggressiveness on 3 measures of driving anger expression, greater trait anger, and more aggressive and less controlled forms of general anger expression, suggesting HP drivers are somewhat more aggressive than the HNP group. Results supported the state-trait model of anger. Implications for intervention were drawn. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

High anger drivers who acknowledged problems with driving anger and were interested in treatment were compared to high and low anger drivers who did not acknowledge problems with driving anger or want treatment. Although high anger drivers who acknowledged problems reported greater anger on two measures than high anger drivers who did not acknowledge problems, both high anger groups tended not to differ from one another and were more frequently and intensely angered when driving, reported more aggressive and less adaptive/constructive forms of expressing anger while driving, engaged in more aggressive and risky behavior on the road, and experienced more of some accident-related outcomes than low anger drivers. High anger groups did not differ from each other, but reported more trait anxiety and anger and more outward negative and less controlled general anger expression than the low anger group. The two groups of high anger drivers, however, require different types of interventions given their state of readiness for driving anger reduction. Results were also interpreted as supportive of the state–trait model of anger and construct validity of the Driving Anger Scale.

Relaxation and cognitive-relaxation interventions were compared to a no treatment control in the treatment of high anger drivers. The cognitive portion of the cognitive-relaxation condition adapted the style of Beck's cognitive therapy, particularly use of Socratic questions and behavioral experiments and tryouts, to driving anger reduction. Both interventions lowered indices of driving anger and hostile and aggressive forms of expressing driving anger and increased adaptive/constructive ways of expressing driving anger. The cognitive-relaxation intervention also lowered the frequency of risky behavior. Both interventions lowered trait anger as well. Limitations and implications for treatment and research were discussed.

of adolescents. It identifies similarities and differences in general, and culturally specific variables in particular, that may account for the differences in drug use rates and the consequences of drug use. Methods: The authors review trends in drug use among minority and nonminority adolescents over the past 25 years and propose an explanatory model for understanding the factors that affect adolescent drug use. Sources of variance examined include factors common to all adolescents, factors unique to certain ethnic groups, temporal influences, location and demographic variables, developmental and socialization factors, and individual characteristics. Results: Most of the variance in adolescent drug use is due to factors that are common across ethnic groups. Conclusion: This finding should not overshadow the importance of addressing ethnocultural issues in designing prevention or treatment interventions, however. Although the major factors leading to drug use may be common across ethnic groups, unique elements within a culture can be used effectively in interventions. Interventions also need to address culturally specific issues in order to gain acceptance within a community.

Four ways people express their anger when driving were identified. Verbal Aggressive Expression (α=0.88) assesses verbally aggressive expression of anger (e.g., yelling or cursing at another driver); Personal Physical Aggressive Expression (α=0.81), the ways the person uses him/herself to express anger (e.g., trying to get out and tell off or have a physical fight with another driver); Use of the Vehicle to Express Anger (α=0.86), the ways the person uses his/her vehicle to express anger (e.g., flashing lights at or cutting another driver off in anger); and Adaptive/Constructive Expression (α=0.90), the ways the person copes positively with anger (e.g., focuses on safe driving or tries to relax). Aggressive forms can be summed into Total Aggressive Expression Index (α=0.90). Aggressive forms of expression correlated positively with each other (rs=0.39–0.48), but were uncorrelated or correlated negatively with adaptive/constructive expression (rs=−0.02 to −0.22). Aggressive forms of anger expression correlated positively with driving-related anger, aggression, and risky behavior; adaptive/constructive expression tended to correlate negatively with these variables. Differences in the strengths of correlations and regression analyses supported discriminant and incremental validity and suggested forms of anger expression contributed differentially to understanding driving-related behaviors. Theoretical and treatment implications were explored.

This article applies the Principles of Empirically Supported Interventions (PESI) in counseling psychology to anger management with adults. The review suggests that there is empirical support for cognitive-behavioral interventions generally and for four specific interventions (relaxation, cognitive, behavioral skill enhancement, and combinations of these three interventions). Moderate effect sizes for these interventions were found on targeted anger measures and for all measures combined. The PESI proved to be flexible, multidimensional principles against which to assess counseling interventions and from which to identify what is known and what needs to be learned.

This study provided evidence of reliability and validity for the four scales of the Driving Anger Expression Inventory. Alpha reliabilities for scales ranged from .84 to .89. Measures of aggressive anger expression while driving (Verbal Aggressive Expression, Personal Physical Aggressive Expression, and Use of the Vehicle to Express Anger scales) correlated positively with each other and negatively with the Adaptive/Constructive Expression scale. Scores on the three aggressive forms of anger expression correlated positively with trait anger and measures of driving-related anger, aggression, and risky behavior, whereas scores on the Adaptive/Constructive Expression scale correlated negatively with these variables. Reports of aggressive and risky behavior correlated most strongly with the Use of the Vehicle to Express Anger scale. Forms of anger expression were minimally or uncorrelated with rated trait anxiety and reports of moving violations, close calls, and accidents. Findings replicated earlier findings and provided further evidence for the reliability and validity of the Driving Anger Expression Inventory.

Community readiness theory is a practical tool for implementing changes in community health services. The theory provides methods for assessment, diagnosis, and community change. First, community key informants are asked semistructured questions that provide information about what is occurring in the community in relation to a specific problem. The results evaluate readiness to deal with that problem on six dimensions; existing efforts, knowledge about the problem, knowledge about alternative methods or policies, leadership, resources, and community climate. The eventual result is a diagnosis of the overall stage of community readiness. There are nine stages, tolerance or no awareness, denial, vague awareness, preplanning, preparation, initiation, institutionalization or stabilization, confirmation/expansion, and professionalization. Each stage requires different forms of interventions in order to move the community to the next stage until, eventually, initiation and maintenance of health services programs and policies can be achieved.

Communities are at many different stages of readiness for implementing programs, and this readiness is a major factor in determining whether a local program can be effectively implemented and supported by the community. The Community Readiness Model was developed to meet research needs, (e.g., matching treatment and control communities for an experimental intervention) as well as to provide a practical tool to help communities mobile for change. The model defines nine stages of community readiness ranging from "no awareness" of the problem to "professionalization" in the response to the problem within the community. Assessment of the stage of readiness is accomplished using key informant interviews, with questions on six different dimensions related to a communitys readiness to mobilize to address a specific issue. Based on experiences in working directly with communities, strategies for successful effort implementation have been developed for each stage of readiness. Once a community has achieved a stage of readiness where local efforts can be initiated, community teams can be trained in use of the community readiness model. These teams can then develop specific, culturally appropriate efforts that use local resources to guide the community to more advanced levels of readiness, eventually leading to long-term sustainability of local community efforts. This article presents the history of the development of the model, the stages of readiness, dimensions used to assess readiness, how readiness is assessed and strategies for change at each level of readiness.

Recent data on 9th-12th grade (n = 629,722) methamphetamine use, both lifetime and last month prevalence, are summarized. From 1989 through 1992, methamphetamine use rates remained relatively stable. Since then, rates have increased, almost doubling, especially in Western states. There were no significant differences in methamphetamine use noted across year in school, but males are more likely to use than females, although use among females has also increased. With regard to ethnicity and use, American Indians and Hispanics were more likely to be using methamphetamine, followed, in order, by Asian Americans, White, non-Hispanics, and African Americans. Compared to other heavily drug-involved youth, methamphetamine users were more likely to use other drugs and suffer drug use consequences. Implications for research, prevention and counseling are briefly discussed.

This paper reports on some characteristics of high-anger drivers in comparison with low-anger drivers. A client analogue of angry drivers reported more frequent and intense anger, aggressive and risky behavior, and accidents (mainly minor accidents or near-accidents) than low-anger drivers, but the groups did not differ on major accidents or moving violations. Angry drivers reported more trait anger and anxiety, anger suppression and outward, less-controlled forms of anger expression. Relaxation and cognitive-relaxation interventions lowered driving anger compared with an untreated control. The cognitive-relaxation intervention was superior on risky behavior, while the relaxation intervention was superior on other measures. Interventions did not influence trait anger, anxiety or general anger expression. State-trait anger theory, construct validity of the trait driver anger measure and the feasibility of driving anger reduction are supported by these findings.

Communities are at many different stages of readiness for implementing programs, and this readiness is to be a major factor in determining whether a local program can be effectively implemented and supported by the community. The Community Readiness Model was developed to meet research needs, (e.g., matching treatment and control communities for an experimental intervention) as well as to provide a practical tool to help communities mobile for change. The model defines nine stages of community readiness ranging from "no awareness" of the problem to "professionalization" in the response to the problem within the community. Assessment of the stage of readiness is accomplished using hey informant interviews, with questions on six different dimensions related to a community's readiness to mobilize to address a specific issue. Based on experiences in working directly with communities, strategies for successful effort implementation have been developed for each stage of readiness. Once a community has achieved a stage of readiness where focal efforts can be initiated, community teams can be trained in use of the community readiness model. These teams can then develop specific, culturally appropriate efforts that use local resources to guide the community to more advanced lec,els of readiness, eventually leading to long-term sustainability of local community efforts. This article presents the history of the development of the model, the stages of readiness, dimensions used to assess readiness, how readiness is assessed and strategies for change at each level of readiness. (C) 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.