Components of Hostility and Verbal Communication of Emotion

Zwaal, Caroline; Husted, Janice; Stones, M. J.

doi:10.1080/0887044021000058067

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies appearing since that time have generally supported this conclusion (Birditt & Fingerman, 2003;Costa, Terracciano & McCrae, 2001;Deffenbacher, Deffenbacher, Lynch & Richards, 2003;Paixao, Oliveira, Page, Uwah & Carlton, 2001;Ramirez, Santisteban, Fujihara & Van Goozen, 2002;Yarcheski, Mahon & Yarcheski, 2002;Zwaal, Prkachin, Husted & Stones, 2003). Brebner (2003) used a large Australian (N=2199) and international sample (N=6868).…”

Section: Angermentioning

confidence: 93%

“…In vignette studies sex differences are rare but, where they are significant, more women than men report that they would express their anger (Brody, 1993;Dosser et al, 1983;Timmers, Fischer & Manstead, 1998 but see Ramirez et al, 2002). Studies that employ spontaneous facial expressions find either no sex differences or that women are more expressive of anger than men (see Kring, 2000;Zwaal et al, 2003).…”

Section: Anger Expressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sex differences in direct aggression: What are the psychological mediators?

Campbell

2006

Aggression and Violent Behavior

225

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Aggression and Violent Behavior. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A denitive version was subsequently published in Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 3, May-June 2006, 10.1016/j.avb.2005.002. Additional information:Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. 3Men engage in more direct aggression than women, although the effect size varies as a function of the seriousness of the act and the data source.The results of several meta-analytic reviews are summarised in Table 1 Studies of the effect of provocation and emotional arousal provide a useful roadmap with which to begin this journey. Provocation increases aggression (Berkowitz, 1989;Bettencourt and Miller, 1996). Provocation also diminishes the magnitude of the sex difference, from d = .33 to d = .17 (Bettencourt and Miller, 1996). Knight, Guthrie, Page and Fabes (2002) examined emotional arousal as an explanation of this effect. They proposed that at very low levels of arousal, sex differences are small because both sexes are able to regulate their emotion and behavior. At high levels of Although the present article focuses upon these emotional and motivational bases, this in no way diminishes the importance of cognitive

show abstract

Section: Angermentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Anger Expressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex differences in direct aggression: What are the psychological mediators?

Campbell

2006

Aggression and Violent Behavior

225

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other computational methods have been specifically designed to measure emotional content in open-ended responses, but they cannot mimic LEAS hand scoring either. The "Dictionary of Affect in Language" (DAL; Whissell, 1989) has been used by many researchers to score text for emotional content (e.g., Dubois, 1997;Mossholder, Settoon, Harris, & Armenakis, 1995;Whissell, 2008;Zwaal, Prkachin, Husted, & Stones, 2003). Each word in DAL has been rated for pleasantness and activity level, on the basis of the circumplex model of emotion (Russell, 1980).…”

Section: Computerized Scoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer scoring of the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale

Barchard

Bajgar

Leaf

et al. 2010

Behavior Research Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale (LEAS; Lane, Quinlan, Schwartz, Walker, & Zeitlan, 1990) is the most commonly used measure of differentiation and complexity in the use of emotion words and is associated with important clinical outcomes. Hand scoring the LEAS is time consuming. Existing programs for scoring open-ended responses cannot mimic LEAS hand scoring. Therefore, Leaf and Barchard (2006) developed the Program for Open-Ended Scoring (POES) to score the LEAS. In this article, we report a study in which the reliability and validity of POES scoring were examined. In the study, we used three participant types (adult community members, university students, children), three LEAS versions (paper based, computer based, and the LEAS for children), and a diverse set of criterion variables. Across this variety of conditions, the four POES scoring methods had internal consistencies and validities that were comparable to hand scoring, indicating that POES scoring can be used in clinical practice and other applied settings in which hand scoring is impractical.

show abstract

“…Hostility and guilt. Although most research on hostility has considered it a trait, it is productive to also consider hostility as an emotion (i.e., hostile affect; Zwaal, Prkachin, Husted, & Stones, 2003). Following Barefoot (1992) and Lazarus and Cohen‐Charash (2001), we define hostility as reflecting the experience of anger.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Work–family Conflict and Emotions: Effects at Work and at Home

Judge

Ilies

Scott

2006

Personnel Psychology

310

276

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the effect of work-family conflict on the emotions of guilt and hostility, and the implications of work-family conflict and these emotions for job satisfaction and marital satisfaction. Using experience-sampling methodology, data were collected from a sample of 75 individuals over a period of 2 weeks (producing 625 data points). Results revealed that within individuals, family-to-work conflict experienced at work, and work-to-family conflict experienced at home, were positively associated with guilt and hostility at work and at home, respectively. In addition, state hostility mediated the negative effect of work-tofamily conflict at home on daily marital satisfaction. Finally, cross-level interaction effects were observed such that work-family conflict more strongly affected the emotions of those scoring high on trait guilt and trait hostility.

show abstract

Components of Hostility and Verbal Communication of Emotion

Cited by 11 publications

References 32 publications

Sex differences in direct aggression: What are the psychological mediators?

Sex differences in direct aggression: What are the psychological mediators?

Computer scoring of the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale

Work–family Conflict and Emotions: Effects at Work and at Home

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About