Potential hostility and dimensions of anger.

Abstract

Recent reviews have linked Potential for Hostility derived from the Structured Interview (SI) to coronary artery disease, independent of the global Type A pattern. The present study examined the construct validity of Potential for Hostility ratings by correlating Potential for Hostility with 21 scales from four widely used anger/hostility measures: 7 scales from the Anger Self-Report, 8 scales from the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory, the total score from the Novaco Anger Inventory, and 5 scales from the Multidimensional Anger Inventory. The pattern of correlations revealed that Potential for Hostility was significantly related to scales reflecting awareness and arousal of anger, particularly the verbal expression of anger. To identify underlying anger dimensions, the 21 scales were factor-analyzed. Examination of two and three rotated principal components confirmed previous solutions. The first component, representing anger-arousing and -eliciting situations and anger awareness, was labeled Experience of Anger. The second component, consisting of scales dealing with either physical assault or verbal expression of anger, was labeled Expression of Anger. When a third factor was retained, it contained scales of suspicion, mistrust-suspicion, and guilt: It was therefore labeled Suspicion-Guilt. Potential for Hostility was correlated only with the Expression of Anger factor in the two-factor solution; in the three-factor solution, Potential for Hostility was correlated equally with the Experience of Anger and Expression of Anger factors but was not correlated with the Suspicion-Guilt factor. The implications of these results for the assessment of hostility are discussed.

Gender differences in the relation between tnterview-derived hostility scores and resting blood pressure

“…The experience construct refers to chronic awareness and feelings of anger, hostility, and irritation, whereas the expression construct refers to an interpersonal style involving cynical, manipulative, and antagonistic behavior associated with anger and hostility. Factor analyses have supported this distinction for a variety of anger/hostility scales for both males (Musante et al, 1989;Suarez and Williams, 1990) and females (Suarez et al, 1993). These dimensions have also been labeled neurotic hostility and antagonistic hostility respectively, as they are related differentially to two of the five factors of personality ; Neuroticism (the experience of generally negative affect, such as anxiety, depression, and hostility) and Antagonism (the expression of disagreeable behaviors such as cynicism and distrust of others).…”

“…Test-retest reliability coefficients for SI-derived Potential for Hostility have been assessed at .54 over a 6-month interval and .55 over an 18-month interval (Musante et al, 1989). Convergent validity has been shown between Potential for Hostility and both anger experience and expression subscales of self-report anger/hostility measures (Musante et al, 1989).…”

“…Further, considering anger and hostility as two separate constructs is often not helpful in understanding the relation between these constructs and CHD (Barefoot, 1992). However, an increasingly accepted, and useful, division of the anger/hostility complex is into two other components; the experience and ~pression of anger/hostility (Musante et al, 1989). The experience construct refers to chronic awareness and feelings of anger, hostility, and irritation, whereas the expression construct refers to an interpersonal style involving cynical, manipulative, and antagonistic behavior associated with anger and hostility.…”

Beyond Type A: Hostility and Coronary Heart Disease—Implications for Research and Practice

“…However, as with measures of TABP, there is only a modest correlation between measures (Dembroski, MacDougall, Williams, Haney, & Blumenthal, 1985). It has been suggested that the PH rating measures behavioral manifestations of hostility (Musante, MacDougall, Dembroski, & Costa, 1989), while the Ho scale measures the more cognitive and affective aspects (Smith & Frohm, 1985). It may be that each operation of the construct suffers from what Cook and Campbell (1979, p. 64) termed "construct underrepresentation," and that a valid measurement of hostility will need to include components of each.…”

Tramiento cognitivo-conductual para enfermos cardiovasculares

“…Al igual que ocurrió con el PCTA, este hecho dificulta la comparación correcta entre estudios, ya que, en ocasiones, los distintos estudios se basan en acepciones diferentes de la hostilidad. La consecuencia es evidente: la diversidad de criterios implica la discutible convergencia y la probable divergencia de los resultados (Musante et al, 1989;Smith, 1992;Suls & Wan, 1993). Por tanto, y a la vista de los resultados, nos debemos plantear la multidimensionalidad del constructo ira-hostilidad, y tener en cuenta la diferenciación de cada uno de sus componentes a la hora de realizar una investigación, ya que, como se mencionó anteriormente, estos dos términos, ira y hostilidad se usan como sinónimos cuando en realidad no lo son (Diamond, 1982;Fernández-Abascal & Palmero, 1999).…”