Hostility moderates the effects of social support and intimacy on blood pressure in daily social interactions.

Abstract

Objective-This study sought to determine the role of hostility in moderating the effects of positive social interactions on ambulatory blood pressure (ABP).Design-Participants (341 adults) completed the Cook-Medley Hostility Scale and underwent ABP monitoring, assessed every 45 min during waking hours across 6 days. An electronic diary measuring mood and social interactions was completed at each ABP assessment.Main Outcome Measures-The dependent variables from the ABP monitor included systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate.Results-Different patterns of ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (ADBP) responding to social interactions perceived as intimate or supportive among high-versus low-hostile individuals were observed. Higher intimacy ratings were linked to reductions in ADBP among low-hostile but not high-hostile individuals. Conversely, high-hostile, but not low-hostile, individuals showed increases in ADBP to situations rated high in social support. Although findings for ambulatory systolic blood pressure were nonsignificant, the pattern of results was similar to ADBP.Conclusion-Hostile individuals may find offers of support stressful and may fail to benefit from intimacy during daily life. The pathogenic effects of hostility may be mediated in part by responses to social interactions, both positive and negative.Keywords ambulatory blood pressure; hostility; social support; intimacy; ecological momentary assessment Trait hostility and social isolation, or lack of social support, have been identified as correlates of coronary heart disease risk (Rozanski, Blumenthal, & Kaplan, 1999). Interpersonal models designed to explain the relationship between hostility and coronary heart disease risk posit that these two characteristics may be interrelated, such that hostile individuals may promote social conflict and may be mistrustful of others' supportive efforts (e.g., Smith, Glazer, Ruiz, & Gallo, 2004). Indeed, evidence has suggested that trait hostility and low social support tend to cooccur and may predict disease outcome synergistically (e.g., Scherwitz, Perkins, Chesney, & Hughes, 1991). Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological AssociationCorrespondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elizabeth J. Vella, Department of Psychology, University of Southern Maine, 514 Science Building, 96 Falmouth Street, Portland, ME 04104. evella@usm.maine.edu. Elizabeth J. Vella is now at the University of Southern Maine, Portland.Some of these data were presented at the 28th annual meeting for the Society of Behavioral Medicine held in March 2007 in Washington, DC. Saul Shiffman is cofounder and chief science officer of Invivodata, Inc., which provides electronic diary methods like those reported here for use in clinical trials. Hostile individuals have been found to exhibit exaggerated cardiovascular reactivity to interpersonal provocation relative to their nonhostile counterparts (e.g., Davis, Matthews, & McGrath, 2000). To the extent that these responses are frequent an...

Hostility and Change in Cognitive Function Over Time in Older Blacks and Whites

“…Again, the association of hostility on level of baseline cognition was unchanged (hostility estimate = −0.025, SE = 0.004, p < .001, Model 4). Both activity patterns and social conditions have been shown to vary by race (34,43), and are associated with hostility (48,49) and cognitive function (42,43). Therefore, we added terms for frequency of social engagement, frequency of cognitive activity, and size of social network in separate models.…”

Daily social interactions, close relationships, and systemic inflammation in two samples: Healthy middle-aged and older adults

“…), the quality of interaction, and the partners involved in the interaction. Although this EMA protocol requires considerable engagement and participation from subjects, the protocol from these two samples has provided valid measures of social interaction that associate in the expected direction with existing measures of social relationship characteristics (Janicki et al, 2006;Vella et al, 2008), and with various health outcomes, including measures of carotid artery intima-media thickness (IMT) (Janicki et al, 2005;Joseph et al, 2014).…”

High hostility among smokers predicts slower recognition of positive facial emotion

“…High hostility is associated with greater interpersonal stress (Benotsch, Christensen, & McKelvey, 1997), expression of hostile emotion during social situations (Brummett et al, 1998), and reports of anger and negative interactions (Brondolo et al, 2003; Shapiro, Jamner, & Goldstein, 1997). High hostile (HH) individuals report lower perceived social support relative to low hostile (LH) individuals (Benotsch et al, 1997; Hardy & Smith, 1988) and may benefit less from social support (Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Uchino, 2008; Lepore, 1995; Vahtera, Kivimaki, Uutela, & Pentti, 2000; Vella, Kamarck, & Shiffman, 2008). Such interpersonal deficits may affect key health outcomes.…”