Cross-cultural assessment of emotions: The expression of anger

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to focus on unique issues that are encountered in the crosscultural adaptation of measures of emotions. We take into consideration the cross-cultural equivalence of the concept of emotion, and how cultural differences influence the meaning of words that are utilized to describe these concepts. The critical need to take the state-trait distinction into account in adapting measures of emotional states and personality traits is then discussed. The effects of language and culture in adapting measures of the experience, expression, and control of anger in Latin-America are also reviewed. The construction of the Latin American Multicultural State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory is described.

Full text

ISSN 0254-9247Vol. 29 (2), 2011 REVISTA DE PSICOLOGÍA
DEPARTAMENTO
DE PSICOLOGÍA
Vol. 29 (2), 2011, ISSN 0254-9247
Lima, Perú
Resiliencia en el maltrato infantil: aportes para la comprensión de factores desde
un modelo ecológico
Gabriela Morelato
Universitarios en educación a distancia: estilos de aprendizaje y rendimiento
académico
Sheyla Blumen, Carol Rivero y Diego Guerrero
Propiedades psicométricas de la Escala MESSY (versión autoinforme) en niños
argentinos
María Julia Ipiña, Leonardo Molina y Cecilia Reyna
Escala de Bienestar Subjetivo en Cuidadores Familiares de Adultos Mayores
(EBEMS/CFAM)
Miriam Teresa Domínguez Guedea, María Fernanda Mandujano Jáquez, Germán
López Dávalos, Rosario Leticia Domínguez Guedea, Manuel Jorge González
Montesinos, Marcela Sotomayor Petearson y Blanca Fraijo Sing
Consistencia interna y estructura factorial de la Escala de Desesperanza de Beck
en estudiantes mexicanos
Martha Córdova Osnaya y José Carlos Rosales Pérez
Representaciones estereotípicas y expresión del prejuicio en el Perú: la mirada
desde la pobreza
Gina Pancorbo, Agustín Espinosa y Rosa María Cueto
Cross-cultural assessment of emotions: The expression of anger
Manolete S. Moscoso y Charles D. Spielberger
Latitud sur y control económico del hogar por la mujer peruana
Federico R. León
Sheyla Blumen
Martha Córdova Osnaya
Rosa María Cueto
Miriam Teresa Domínguez Guedea
Rosario Leticia Domínguez Guedea
Agustín Espinosa
Blanca Fraijo Sing
Manuel Jorge González Montesinos
Diego Guerrero
María Julia Ipiña
Federico R. León
Germán López Dávalos
María Fernanda Mandujano Jáquez
Leonardo Molina
Gabriela Morelato
Manolete S. Moscoso
Gina Pancorbo
Cecilia Reyna
Carol Rivero
José Carlos Rosales Pérez
Marcela Sotomayor Petearson
Charles D. Spielberger

Revista de Psicología Vol. 29 (2), 2011 (ISSN 0254-9247)
Cross-cultural assessment of emotions: The expression of anger
Manolete S. Moscoso1 and Charles D. Spielberger2
University of South Florida, Tampa, USA
The purpose of this article is to focus on unique issues that are encountered in the cross-
cultural adaptation of measures of emotions. We take into consideration the cross-cultural
equivalence of the concept of emotion, and how cultural differences influence the meaning
of words that are utilized to describe these concepts. The critical need to take the state-trait
distinction into account in adapting measures of emotional states and personality traits is
then discussed. The effects of language and culture in adapting measures of the experience,
expression, and control of anger in Latin-America are also reviewed. The construction of the
Latin American Multicultural State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory is described.
Keywords: Anger expression, state-trait, cross-cultural adaptation, emotions.
Medición transcultural de las emociones: la expresion de la ira
Se presenta un análisis de las dificultades encontradas en el proceso de adaptación transcul-
tural de pruebas de medición de las emociones. Se toma en consideración la equivalencia
transcultural del concepto de emoción, y cómo las diferencias culturales tienen una gran
influencia en el significado de las palabras a ser usadas para definir y describir las emo-
ciones y su medición. Se discute la importancia y necesidad de considerar el concepto de
estado-rasgo en el proceso de adaptación de pruebas psicológicas que evalúan los estados
emocionales. Se examina los efectos de la lengua y cultura en la adaptación de pruebas
que evalúen la experiencia, expresión y control de la ira en Latinoamérica. Finalmente, se
describe la construcción del Inventario Multicultural Latinoamericano de la Expresión de
la Ira, Estado-Rasgo.
Palabras clave: expresión de la ira, estado-rasgo, adaptación transcultural, emociones.
1 Ph. D. in Psychology. University of South Florida/Health Schools of Medicine, Public Health &
Nursing. Contacto: 1978 Roseate Lane, Sanibel, FL 33957, USA; mmoscoso@health.usf.edu
2 Ph.D. in Psychology. Center for Research in Behavioral Medicine and Health Psychology.
Contacto: 4202 East Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL 33620, USA; spielber@usf.edu

345
Cross-cultural assessment of emotions: e expression of anger / Moscoso y Spielberger
The International Test Commission Guidelines (ITC) provides
excellent recommendations of methods and procedures for the cross-
cultural adaptation of educational and psychological tests. Following
these guidelines is essential in adapting measures of achievement and
aptitude to facilitate comparison of the relative performance of individ-
uals from different languages and cultures. While the ITC Guidelines
are applicable to adapting all types of psychological tests, personality
and emotional states measures are quite different from aptitudes and
abilities (Lievens, Harris, Van Keer & Bisqueret, 2003). Emotional
states and the behaviors that comprise personality traits are more
subjective and less clearly defined than aptitudes, abilities, and achieve-
ment. Moreover, as Anastasi (1988, p. 532) has observed: “Even more
than ability tests, personality tests can be expected to show large sub-
cultural as well as cultural differences”.
Differences in the interpretation of test instructions also contribute
to problems in the cross-cultural adaptation of measures of emotions
and personality. For example, Marsella and Leong (1995) observed that
persons from non-Western cultures may be uncomfortable in giving
true or false responses to the items of the Minnesota Multiphasic Per-
sonality Inventory (MMPI) because persons from collectivist cultures
typically place greater emphasis on situational factors that influence
their feelings and behavior. To illustrate this point, Marsella and Leong
(1995, p. 208) quote a Filipino respondent to the MMPI who clearly
expressed this concern: “Sir, sometimes true and sometimes false. I can-
not tell you true or false all the time”. Understanding such differences
in the reactions to test instructions of respondents from different cul-
tures requires knowledge of the special conditions and circumstances
that are characteristic of a particular culture (Moscoso, 1997).
Construct equivalence is an essential requirement in the cross-cultural
adaptation of all types of tests (Hambleton, 2000). In adapting measures
of personality and emotions, special attention must also be given to the

346
Revista de Psicología, Vol. 29 (2), 2011, pp. 343-360 (ISSN 0254-9247)
state-trait distinction (Cattell, 1966; Cattell & Scheier, 1960; Cohen,
Swerdlik & Smith, 1992; Lonner, 1990), and to item intensity-specificity.
In assessing individual differences, the relative frequency of occurrence of
emotional states must also be evaluated (Spielberger, 1988).
The non-equivalence of constructs in different languages and cul-
tures is perhaps the most serious source of error in adapting measures of
personality and emotion (Moscoso, 1998). Cross-cultural equivalence
is especially difficult to obtain with measures of emotions and person-
ality because there is, as yet, relatively little agreement in regard to the
criteria for defining the fundamental personality dimensions (Cohen et
al., 1992; Cronbach, 1990). For example, there is only limited coher-
ence between measures of the clinical syndromes on which MMPI scale
scores are based and the personality dimensions assessed by the MMPI.
Recognition of this shortcoming has stimulated the development of
the MMPI-2 Content Scales for assessing anxiety, fear, depression and
anger (Butcher, Graham, Williams & Ben-Porath, 1989).
Measuring personality traits and emotional states
Definitions of personality vary from comprehensive accounts of
behavior in all of its complex details to specific descriptions of indi-
vidual personality traits (Guthrie & Lonner, 1986). Anastasi (1988)
emphasizes the importance of defining personality in terms of mean-
ingful trait concepts that describe categories into which behavior must
be classified if it is to be accurately measured. Consistent with Anastasi’s
emphasis on fundamental traits, Cohen et al. (1992) define personal-
ity as “an individual’s unique constellation of psychological states and
traits” (p. 401). Anxiety, anger and depression are examples of mean-
ingful states and traits that are uniquely related to personality (Moscoso
& Spielberger, 1999a; Spielberger, Reheiser & Sydeman, 1995).
The cross-cultural equivalence of anxiety and anger as emotional
states and personality traits is facilitated by the fact that these fun-
damental emotions appear to be universal products of evolution. In

347
Cross-cultural assessment of emotions: e expression of anger / Moscoso y Spielberger
his classic book, Expressions of Emotions in Man and Animals, Dar-
win (1872) concluded that fear and rage are intense emotions that can
be identified by facial expressions, not only in humans, but also in
many animal species. Consistent with these research findings, Dimberg
(1998) observed that distinctive facial reactions are manifested after
very brief exposure to fear and anger related relevant stimuli, such as
snakes and angry faces, indicating that the perception of threatening
stimuli can instantaneously evoke specific emotions.
The words used in different languages to describe emotional states
and personality traits generally have a wide range of connotations
(Rogler, 1999). Even within a particular language, the same word may
have a variety of meanings in different subcultures (Moscoso, 2001).
Therefore, differences between and within cultures, in the meaning of
the words used to describe emotional states and personality traits, are
especially problematic in the cross-cultural adaptation of measures of
these constructs (Moscoso, 1999; Spielberger & Moscoso, 1995). The
following are examples of subcultural differences in the meaning of
Spanish words (Cabrera, 1998): In Caribbean countries guagua means
bus, but this same word refers to a baby or child in Chile, Colombia and
Peru. Verraco is a pig in Cuba, but has the connotation in Colombia of
a person who is tough. In Cuba, bicho refers to an insect, but describes a
penis in Puerto Rico. In Spain, the verb coger has the innocuous mean-
ing to take or to seize, but means having sex in Mexico and Venezuela.
These examples clearly indicate that the successful adaptation of
self-report measures of emotional states and personality traits requires the
careful selection of idioms that have essentially the same meaning in both
the original (source) and second (target) languages. However, ensuring
accurate representation of the psychological concepts that are assessed
is often difficult because languages differ in the connotations of words
used to describe the feelings and cognitions associated with different
emotional states and personality traits (Spielberger, Moscoso & Brunner,
2005). Moreover, as noted by Wierzbicka (1994, p. 135) “… the set of
emotion terms available in any given language is unique and reflects a
culture’s unique perspective on people’s ways of feeling” (p. 135).

348
Revista de Psicología, Vol. 29 (2), 2011, pp. 343-360 (ISSN 0254-9247)
Self-report measures of anxiety, anger and depression cannot be
simply translated and back-translated, but must be adapted for cross-
cultural research (Moscoso, 1998).The process of back translation is
traditionally used to facilitate adapting educational and psychological
tests from one language into another language (Brislin, 1986). In the
back translation of test items, from the target language into the original
language, the literal translation of words is emphasized. However, the
back translation of an original scale item is often less adequate than
constructing a new item based on an equivalent cross-cultural concep-
tual definition of the emotional state or personality dimension that
is being measured (Spielberger & Diaz-Guerrero, 1982). This is espe-
cially true in adapting idiomatic expressions.
Translating of key words and idiomatic expressions is especially diffi-
cult, and may require frequent consultations with language experts. From
the standpoint of the exactness of the translation, it is recommended that
items be grouped into three categories: a) Items with key words whose
translations closely fit the meaning of the word in the source language, b)
items with key words for which it is difficult to find corresponding items
in the target language, and c) items with a linguistic form that cannot be
translated from the source language to the target language without chang-
ing the grammatical construction. A number of cycles of translation and
back translation may be required before an adequate adaptation can be
developed for the latter type of item (Moscoso & Spielberger, 1999a).
In adapting measures of emotional states and personality traits,
the key word for an item in the source language may have several dif-
ferent translations that are equally acceptable in the target language.
Different key words in two or more items in the source language may
also be represented by a single word in the target language. Where the
literal translation of a scale item is not possible, it is important to retain
the essential meaning of the original item by selecting a synonym of the
key word that reflects its basic meaning in the target language.
When adapting idiomatic expressions, special care must be taken
to translate the feeling connotation of the idiom, rather than translat-
ing the literal meaning of the individual words (Guthrie & Lonner,

349
Cross-cultural assessment of emotions: e expression of anger / Moscoso y Spielberger
1986). Identifying comparable idiomatic expressions in the language
into which a scale is being translated is preferable to the literal transla-
tion of the original idiom. Consequently, in translating and adapting
idioms, the cross-cultural equivalence of the theoretical concepts that
are being measured is essential. Given the difficulties that are likely to
be encountered in translating key words and idiomatic expressions, a
substantially larger pool of items than will be eventually needed should
be constructed in order to capture the full meaning of the construct
that is being measured. Statistical and validation procedures can then
be used to determine which items have the best internal consistency as
measures of the specified construct (McPhail, 2007).
Cross-cultural assessment of the experience, expression and
control of anger
Over the last quarter century, interest in measuring the experience,
expression and control of anger has been stimulated by evidence that
anger, hostility and aggression were associated with hypertension and
cardiovascular disease (Spielberger & Moscoso, 1995; Williams, Bare-
foot & Shekelle, 1985). While definitions of anger-related constructs
are often inconsistent and ambiguous, the experience and expression of
anger are typically encompassed in definitions of hostility and aggression.
Clearly, anger is the most fundamental of these overlapping constructs.
On the basis of a careful review of the research literature on anger,
hostility and aggression, the following definitions of these constructs
were proposed by Spielberger and Moscoso (1995). Anger usually refers
to an emotional state that consists of feelings that vary in intensity,
from mild irritation or annoyance to intense fury and rage. Although
hostility involves angry feelings, this concept has the connotation of
a complex set of attitudes that motivate aggressive behaviors directed
toward destroying objects or injuring other people. The concept of
aggression generally implies destructive or punitive behavior directed
towards other persons or objects.

350
Revista de Psicología, Vol. 29 (2), 2011, pp. 343-360 (ISSN 0254-9247)
The physiological and behavioral manifestations of anger, hostil-
ity, and aggression have been investigated in numerous studies, but
until recently, angry feelings have been largely ignored in psychological
research. Consequently, psychometric measures of anger, hostility, and
aggression generally do not distinguish between feeling angry and the
expression of anger and hostility in aggressive behavior. Most measures
of anger-related constructs also fail to take the state-trait distinction
into account, and confound the experience and expression of anger
with situational determinants of angry behavior (Moscoso, 2001). A
coherent theoretical framework that recognizes the difference between
anger, hostility, and aggression as psychological constructs, and that
distinguishes between anger as an emotional state and individual differ-
ences in the experience, expression, and control of anger as personality
traits, is essential for guiding the construction and cross-cultural adap-
tation of anger measures (Moscoso & Spielberger, 1999b).
Measuring state and trait anger
The State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI) was devel-
oped by Spielberger and his colleagues to measure the experience,
expression and control of anger (Spielberger, Krasner & Solomon,
1988). The State-Trait Anger Scale (STAS) was constructed to assess
the intensity of anger as an emotional state and individual differences
in anger proneness as a personality trait (Spielberger, 1983). S-Anger
was defined as “an emotional state marked by subjective feelings that
vary in intensity from mild annoyance or irritation to intense fury or
rage, which is generally accompanied by muscular tension and arousal
of the autonomic nervous system” (Spielberger, 1988, p. 1). Trait anger
refers to individual differences in the disposition to experience angry
feelings (Spielberger, 1983). The STAS T-Anger Scale evaluates how
frequently S-Anger is experienced.

351
Cross-cultural assessment of emotions: e expression of anger / Moscoso y Spielberger
Measuring the expression and control of anger
Recognition of the importance of distinguishing between the
experience and expression of anger stimulated the development of the
Anger Expression (AX) Scale (Spielberger, 1988). The AX Scale assesses
how often anger is suppressed (anger-in) or expressed in aggressive
behavior (anger-out). The instructions for responding to the AX Scale
differ markedly from the traditional trait instructions for the STAS
T-Anger Scale. Rather than directing subjects to respond according to
how they generally feel, they are instructed to report how often they
react or behave in a particular manner when they feel “angry or furious”
(e. g. “I say nasty things”, “I boil inside, but don’t show it”) by rating
themselves on the same 4-point frequency scale that is used with the
T-Anger Scale.
The identification of anger control as an independent factor stim-
ulated the construction of a scale to assess the control of angry feelings
(Spielberger, 1988). The content of 3 of the 20 original AX Scale items
(e. g. control my temper, keep my cool, calm down faster), which were
included to assess intermediate levels of anger expression as an uni-
dimensional bipolar scale, guided the generation of additional anger
control items.
The last stage in the construction of the STAXI was stimulated
by the research of psycholinguists, who identified English metaphors
for anger, which called attention to the need to distinguish between
two different mechanisms for controlling anger expression (Lakoff,
1987). The prototype of the anger metaphor was described as a hot
liquid in a container, where blood was the hot liquid and the body was
the container. The intensity of anger as an emotional state is consid-
ered analogous to the variations in the temperature of the hot liquid.
The metaphor, boiling inside, has the connotation an intense level
of suppressed anger; blowing off steam connotes the outward expres-
sion of angry feelings; keeping the lid on implies controlling intense
anger by preventing the outward expression of aggressive behavior.
Thus, Lakoff ’s (1987) anger metaphors suggested two quite different

352
Revista de Psicología, Vol. 29 (2), 2011, pp. 343-360 (ISSN 0254-9247)
mechanisms for controlling anger: keeping angry feelings bottled up to
prevent their expression, and reducing the intensity of suppressed anger
by cooling down.
In the original STAXI scale, the content of all but 1 of the 8 AX/
Con items was related to controlling anger-out (e. g. “I control my
temper”). Therefore, a number of new items were constructed to assess
the control of anger-in by reducing the intensity of suppressed anger
(Sydeman, 1995). The content of these items described efforts to calm
down, cool off, or relax when a person feels angry or furious. Factor
analyses of the responses of large samples of male and female adults to
the anger-control items identified two anger control factors for both
sexes: Anger/Control-In and Anger/Control-Out.
Construction of the Latin American Multicultural State-Trait
Anger Expression Inventory
Spanish is spoken not only in Spain, but also in more than 20 coun-
tries in Central and South America and the Caribbean, and by more than
40 million native speakers of Spanish who reside in the United States.
Although Spanish is the primary language in most of Latin America
and for many Hispanic residents in the U.S., the indigenous cultures
of these persons often have profound effects on the Spanish they speak,
and on the development of personality characteristics that influence
their behavior. Therefore, it is important to recognize the exception-
ally complex social and cultural diversity of Hispanic populations, and
that language differences between these groups may outweigh the simi-
larities. Consequently, in adapting English measures of emotion and
personality for use in Spanish-speaking cultures, care must be taken to
ensure that the key words and idiomatic expressions used for assessing
anger-related concepts have essentially the same meaning in different
Hispanic cultural groups (Moscoso & Nieto, 2003).
The STAXI-2 was adapted to measure the experience, expression
and control of anger in culturally diverse populations in Latin America,

353
Cross-cultural assessment of emotions: e expression of anger / Moscoso y Spielberger
and in Spanish-speaking subcultures in the United States (Moscoso,
2000; Moscoso & Spielberger, 1999a). Toward achieving this goal, the
Latin American Multicultural State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory
(STAXI-LAM) was designed to measure essentially the same dimen-
sions of anger that are assessed with the STAXI-2 (Spielberger, 1999).
Scales and subscales were constructed to assess the following dimen-
sions with the STAXI-LAM: a) State Anger, with subscales for assessing
Feeling Angry and Feel Like Expressing Anger; b) Trait Anger, with
subscales for measuring Angry Temperament and Angry Reaction; and
c) trait scales for measuring four dimensions of anger expression and
control: anger-in, anger-out, and the control of anger-in and anger-out
(Moscoso & Spielberger, 1999b).
Preliminary translations of the STAXI-2 items were constructed
for the STAXI-LAM. These items were reviewed by 26 prominent Latin
American psychologists, who were instructed to recommend modifica-
tions and corrections in conformance with linguistic descriptors of the
experience, expression, and control of anger in their countries (Mos-
coso, 2000). Based on the consensus of these experts, the STAXI-LAM
items were revised, and the 56-item revised scale was administered to
257 participants (179 females, 78 males) at the 25th Inter-American
Congress of Psychology in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The sample included
respondents from Caribbean countries (48%), South America (32%),
Central America (16%) and Spain (4%), who ranged in age from 20
to 78 years (median age = 36 years). All participants had completed
training in psychology, or were currently enrolled in undergraduate or
graduate psychology programs.
Factor analyses of responses to the 56 preliminary STAXI-LAM
items confirmed the hypothesized structural properties of the inventory.
The eight factors that were identified corresponded quite well with similar
factors in the STAXI-2. These included 2 S-Anger factors, 2 T-Anger fac-
tors, and 4 anger expression and control factors (Moscoso & Spielberger,
1999a). In separate factor analyses of the S-Anger items, two distinctive
factors were identified for both males and females: Feeling angry and Feel
like expressing anger. However, gender differences in the strength of the

354
Revista de Psicología, Vol. 29 (2), 2011, pp. 343-360 (ISSN 0254-9247)
item loadings on these factors raised interesting questions in regard to
how Latin American men and women may differ in the experience of
anger. For females, the feeling angry factor accounted for 73% of the total
variance, while this factor accounted for only 19% of the variance for
males. In contrast, the feel like expressing anger factor accounted for 70%
of the total variance of the males, but only 13% for females.
The factor analyses of the T-Anger STAXI-LAM items also
identified separate Angry Temperament and Angry Reaction factors,
providing strong evidence that the factor structure for this scale was
similar to that of the STAXI-2. Factor analyses of the STAXI-LAM
anger expression and control items identified the same four factors as in
the STAXI-2. The items designed to assess anger-in and anger-out, and
the control of anger-in and anger-out, had high loadings on the cor-
responding anger expression and control factors, which were similar for
both sexes. The alpha coefficients for the STAXI-LAM State and Trait
Anger scales and subscales, and the anger expression and anger control
scales, were reasonably high, indicating that the internal consistency of
these scales was satisfactory.
In summary, the results of the factor analyses of responses of the
Latin American subjects to the STAXI-LAM items of the Latin Ameri-
can subjects identified 8 factors that were quite similar to those found
for the STAXI-2. Separate factor analyses of the S-Anger and T-Anger
items confirmed the identification of two related but distinctive S-An-
ger factors: feeling angry and feel like expressing anger, and two highly
correlated but clearly different T-Anger factors, Angry Temperament
and Angry Reaction. Factor analyses of the anger expression and con-
trol items also identified the same four factors that are found in the
STAXI-2. Thus, the multidimensional factor structure of the STAXI-
LAM for the Latin American respondents was remarkably similar to
the factor structure of the English STAXI-2.

355
Cross-cultural assessment of emotions: e expression of anger / Moscoso y Spielberger
Summary and recommendations
In adapting measures of emotional states and personality traits,
the non-equivalence of psychological constructs in different cultures is
a major source of error. Cross-cultural equivalence is especially prob-
lematic in adapting personality measures because agreement is lacking
in regard to the criteria for defining the fundamental dimensions of
personality. Therefore, the cross-cultural equivalence of the concepts
that define the dimensions that are being measured is essential. Spe-
cial attention must be given to distinguishing between emotional states
that vary in intensity, and individual differences in personality traits
that are relatively stable over time. In constructing items to measure
emotional states and personality traits, it is also essential to take item-
intensity specificity into account so that the full range of intensity of an
emotional state can be assessed.
The cross-cultural equivalence of anxiety, anger and depression as
psychological constructs is facilitated by the fact that these emotions
appear to be universal products of evolution. Darwin observed that fear
(anxiety) and rage (anger) are universal characteristics of both humans
and animals. These emotions mediate and motivate fight-or-flight
reactions that were recognized by Cannon as contributing to success-
ful adaptation and survival. Both anxiety and anger vary in intensity
as a function of how individuals react to stressful circumstances, and
people differ in the intensity and frequency that they experience these
fundamental emotions.
The words used in different languages to describe emotional states
and personality traits are markedly influenced by cultural differences,
which reflect the unique perspective of a particular culture in regard
to the feelings associated with a particular emotion. In the cross-cul-
tural adaptation of psychological tests, careful selection of words and/
or idioms that have essentially the same meaning in both the source
and target languages is required to ensure accurate representation of
the psychological constructs that are being assessed. In adapting mea-
sures of emotional states and personality traits, it is also important to

356
Revista de Psicología, Vol. 29 (2), 2011, pp. 343-360 (ISSN 0254-9247)
consider cultural differences in the meaning of words for persons who
speak the same language.
Traditionally, the process of adapting psychological scales has
involved the back translation of items from the target language to
the source language. While emphasizing the literal translation of each
word, this approach gives relatively little consideration to the constructs
that are being measured. Two major limitations of back translation are
the difficulty of finding words in the target language with meaning
equivalent to key words in the source language, and translating idiom-
atic expressions. For idiomatic expressions, it is essential to adapt the
feeling connotation of the idiom in the source language rather than
translating the literal meaning of each word. It is also highly desirable
to identify idioms with comparable meaning in the source and target
languages.
In the cross-cultural adaptation of anger measures, it is essential
to have equivalent conceptual definitions in the source and target lan-
guages that distinguish between the experience of anger as an emotional
state, and individual differences in the expression and control of anger
as personality traits. The construction and development of the Latin
American Multicultural State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory guided
by definitions of state and trait anger and anger-expression and anger-
control as these constructs were conceptualized in the STAXI-2. Factor
analyses of the items constructed for the STAXI-LAM identified eight
factors that were quite similar to the factor structure of the STAXI-2.
Thus, statistical analyses of the responses to the STAXI-LAM items
verified that the components of anger assessed with this inventory are
similar to the anger components assessed with the STAXI-2. Research
on the STAXI-2 and the STAXI-LAM clearly indicates that anger as a
psychological construct can be meaningfully defined as an emotional
state that varies in intensity and as a complex personality trait with
major components that can be measured empirically.

357
Cross-cultural assessment of emotions: e expression of anger / Moscoso y Spielberger
References
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instru-
ments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in
cross‑cultural research (Vol. 8, pp. 137-164). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Williams, C. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S.
(1989). Development and use of the MMPI‑2 Content Scales.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Cabrera, C. (1998, August 14). Tricky translations: When speaking
Spanish, what’s acceptable in some countries could get you in
trouble in others. The Tampa Tribune, Baylife Section, pp. 1-2.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). Patterns of change: Measurements in relation to
state-dimension, trait change, ability, and process concepts. In
R. B. Cattell (Ed.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psy‑
chology (pp. 288-329). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Cattell, R. B. & Scheier, I. H. (1960). Stimuli related to stress, neu-
roticism, excitation, and anxiety response patterns. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 195-204.
Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Smith, D. K. (1992). Psychological
testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurements
(2nd. ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychological testing (5th ed.). New
York: Harper & Row.
Darwin, C. (1965). Expression of emotions in man and animals. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. (Originally published in 1872).
Dimberg, U. (1998). Fear of snakes and facial reactions: A case of rapid
emotional responding. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 39,
75-80.
Guthrie, G. M. & Lonner, W. J. (1986). Assessment of personality and
psychopathology. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field
methods in cross‑cultural research (Vol. 8, pp. 231-264). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.

358
Revista de Psicología, Vol. 29 (2), 2011, pp. 343-360 (ISSN 0254-9247)
Hambleton, R. K. (2000). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines
for adapting tests in multiple languages and cultures. In R. K.
Hambleton, P. F. Merenda & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Adapt‑
ing educational and psychological tests for cross‑cultural assessment.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories
reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lievens, F., Harris, M. M., Van Keer, E., & Bisqueret, C. (2003).
Predicting cross-cultural training performance: The validity of
personality, cognitive ability, and dimensions measured by an
assessment center and a behavioral description interview. Jour‑
nal of Applied Psychology, 88, 476-489.
Lonner, W. J. (1990). An overview of cross-cultural testing and assess-
ment. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross‑cultural psychology
(pp. 56-76). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McPhail, S. M. (2007). Alternative validation strategies: Developing
new and leveraging existing validity evidence. San Francisco, CA:
Wiley.
Marsella, A. J. & Leong, F. T. (1995). Cross-cultural issues in person-
ality and career assessment. Journal of Career Assessment, 3(2),
202-218.
Moscoso, M. S. (1997). Medición de la cólera y hostilidad: implica-
ciones en el tratamiento psicológico con pacientes VIH/SIDA.
Revista Peruana de Psicología, 2(4), 39-64.
Moscoso, M. S. (1998). Estrés, salud y emociones: estudio de la ansie-
dad, cólera y hostilidad. Revista de Psicología de la Universidad
Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 3, 47-68.
Moscoso, M. S. (1999). Medición de la expresión de la cólera y hosti-
lidad. Revista de Psicología de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de
San Marcos, 4, 169-188.
Moscoso, M. S. (2000). Estructura factorial del Inventario Multicultural
Latinoamericano de la Expresión de la Cólera y la Hostilidad.
Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 32(2), 321-343.

359
Cross-cultural assessment of emotions: e expression of anger / Moscoso y Spielberger
Moscoso, M. S. (2001). Estudio de la rabia y hostilidad: sus efectos en
la salud. Revista Comportamiento de la Universidad Simón Bolí‑
var, 6, 17-39.
Moscoso, M. S. (2007). La expresión y supresión de la cólera: sus efec-
tos en la salud y su medición psicométrica en América Latina.
Revista Psicológica Herediana, 2(2), 104-114.
Moscoso, M. S. & Spielberger, C. D. (1999a). Evaluación de la expe-
riencia, expresión y control de la cólera en Latinoamérica.
Psicología Contemporánea, 6(1), 4-13.
Moscoso, M. S. & Spielberger, C. D. (1999b). Measuring the experi-
ence, expression, and control of anger in Latin America: The
Spanish multi-cultural State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory.
Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 33(2), 29-48.
Rogler, L. H. (1999). Methodological sources of cultural insensitivity in
mental health research. American Psychologist, 54(6), 424-433.
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State‑Trait Anxiety Inventory
(Rev. ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Spielberger, C. D. (1988). State‑Trait Anger Expression Inventory Man‑
ual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Spielberger, C. D. (1999). State‑Trait Anger Expression Inventory‑2.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Spielberger, C. D. & Díaz-Guerrero, R. (1982). Cross-cultural anxiety:
An overview. In C. D. Spielberger & R. Díaz-Guerrero (Eds.),
Cross‑cultural anxiety (Vol. 2). New York: Hemisphere/McGraw-
Hill.
Spielberger, C. D., Krasner, S. S., & Solomon, E. P. (1988). The expe-
rience, expression and control of anger. In M. P. Janisse (Ed.),
Health psychology: Individual differences and stress (pp. 89-108).
New York: Springer Verlag.
Spielberger, C. D. & Moscoso, M. S. (1995). La expresión de cólera y
hostilidad y sus consecuencias en el sistema cardiovascular. Psico‑
logía Contemporánea, 2(1), 32-43.
Spielberger, C. D., Moscoso, M. S., & Brunner, T. M. (2005). Cross-
cultural assessment of emotional states and personality traits. In

360
Revista de Psicología, Vol. 29 (2), 2011, pp. 343-360 (ISSN 0254-9247)
R. K. Hambleton, P. F. Merenda & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.),
Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross‑cultural assess‑
ment (pp. 343-367). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Spielberger, C. D., Reheiser, E. C., & Sydeman, S. J. (1995). Mea-
suring the experience, expression, and control of anger. In H.
Kassinove (Ed.), Anger disorders: Definitions, diagnosis, and treat‑
ment. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Sydeman, S. J. (1995). The control of suppressed anger (Unpublished
master’s thesis). University of South Florida, Tampa, USA.
Wierzbicka, A. (1994). Emotion, language, and cultural scripts. In S.
E. Kitayama & H. R. M. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture:
Empirical studies of mutual influence (pp. 133-195). Washing-
ton, DC: American Psychological Association.
Williams, R. B., Barefoot, J. C., & Shekelle, R. B. (1985). The health
consequences of hostility. In M. A. Chesney & R. A. Rosenman
(Eds.), Anger and hostility in cardiovascular and behavioral disor‑
ders (pp. 173-185). New York: Hemisphere/McGraw-Hill.
Recibido: 24 de marzo, 2011
Aceptado: 18 de julio, 2011

Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Departamento de Psicología
REVISTA DE PSICOLOGÍA
ISSN 0254-9247
Vol. 29 (2), 2011
Editora: Sheyla Blumen
Comité
Ejecutivo:
Roberto Criado, Santiago Cueto, Marcia de la Flor, Roberto Lerner,
Matilde Ráez, María Ragúz
Comité
Editorial:
Reynaldo Alarcón (Universidad Ricardo Palma, Perú), Victoria Arévalo
(Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú), Robert Bechtel (University
of Arizona, EE.UU.), Germán Berrios (University of Cambridge, Reino
Unido), Mary Louise Claux (Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú),
Jozef Corveleyn (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Bélgica), Susana
Frisancho (Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú), Fernando Jiménez
Gómez (Universidad de Salamanca, España), Ramón León (Universidad
Ricardo Palma, Perú), María Regina Maluf (Universidade de São Paulo,
Brasil), Patricia Martínez (Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú),
Aníbal Meza (Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia), Franz Mönks
(Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Holanda), Luis A. Oblitas (Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México), Alfonso Orantes (Universidad Central
de Venezuela), Juana Pinzás (Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú),
Ernesto Pollitt (University of California, Davis, EE.UU.), María del Pilar
Sánchez-López (Universidad Complutense de Madrid, España), Malva
Villalón (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile), Orlando Villegas
(Wayne State University, EE.UU.)
Asistente
de Edición:
Paula Moreyra
© Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 2011
Av. Universitaria 1801, Lima 32 - Perú
Teléfono: (511) 626-2650, Fax: (511) 626-2913
feditor@pucp.edu.pe
www.pucp.edu.pe/publicaciones
Diseño de cubierta y diagramación de interiores: Fondo Editorial PUCP
ISSN 0254-9247
Hecho el Depósito Legal en la Biblioteca Nacional del Perú N° 95-0869
Primera edición: diciembre 2011
Tiraje: 150 ejemplares
S    
   
T A G E
P. M A 156, B
C .: @.
T: 332-3229 F: 424-1582
S  
A G P  11 
    
 2011 L - P

ISSN 0254-9247Vol. 29 (2), 2011 REVISTA DE PSICOLOGÍA
DEPARTAMENTO
DE PSICOLOGÍA
Vol. 29 (2), 2011, ISSN 0254-9247
Lima, Perú
Resiliencia en el maltrato infantil: aportes para la comprensión de factores desde
un modelo ecológico
Gabriela Morelato
Universitarios en educación a distancia: estilos de aprendizaje y rendimiento
académico
Sheyla Blumen, Carol Rivero y Diego Guerrero
Propiedades psicométricas de la Escala MESSY (versión autoinforme) en niños
argentinos
María Julia Ipiña, Leonardo Molina y Cecilia Reyna
Escala de Bienestar Subjetivo en Cuidadores Familiares de Adultos Mayores
(EBEMS/CFAM)
Miriam Teresa Domínguez Guedea, María Fernanda Mandujano Jáquez, Germán
López Dávalos, Rosario Leticia Domínguez Guedea, Manuel Jorge González
Montesinos, Marcela Sotomayor Petearson y Blanca Fraijo Sing
Consistencia interna y estructura factorial de la Escala de Desesperanza de Beck
en estudiantes mexicanos
Martha Córdova Osnaya y José Carlos Rosales Pérez
Representaciones estereotípicas y expresión del prejuicio en el Perú: la mirada
desde la pobreza
Gina Pancorbo, Agustín Espinosa y Rosa María Cueto
Cross-cultural assessment of emotions: The expression of anger
Manolete S. Moscoso y Charles D. Spielberger
Latitud sur y control económico del hogar por la mujer peruana
Federico R. León
Sheyla Blumen
Martha Córdova Osnaya
Rosa María Cueto
Miriam Teresa Domínguez Guedea
Rosario Leticia Domínguez Guedea
Agustín Espinosa
Blanca Fraijo Sing
Manuel Jorge González Montesinos
Diego Guerrero
María Julia Ipiña
Federico R. León
Germán López Dávalos
María Fernanda Mandujano Jáquez
Leonardo Molina
Gabriela Morelato
Manolete S. Moscoso
Gina Pancorbo
Cecilia Reyna
Carol Rivero
José Carlos Rosales Pérez
Marcela Sotomayor Petearson
Charles D. Spielberger