What does potential for hostility measure? Gender differences in the expression of hostility

Abstract

We examined the construct validity of Potential for Hostility (PH) for healthy undergraduate males and females. In Study 1, 45 males and 76 females were rated for PH. Subjects then completed the Cook Medley Hostility Scale (Ho) and a trait negative affectivity (NA) scale. For males, PH correlated with Cynicism, a subscale of the Ho, but was unrelated to NA. However, for females, PH was unrelated to self-reported hostility and minimally related to NA. In Study 2, 52 males and 91 females again were rated for PH in addition to state NA; subjects also provided self-reported state NA and PH measures. For males, convergence was found between observed and self-reported PH scores, but no such relation was found for females; only self-reported and observed state NA predicted females' PH rating. Thus, the Structured Interview method of hostility assessment may not be measuring the same hostility construct in females as it is in males.

Components of Hostility and Verbal Communication of Emotion

“…Independent judges' ratings of the overall degree of anger apparent in the transcripts of participants' interviews were significantly predicted by the hostility components of aggressive It is not surprising that the analysis of participants' use of evaluative words revealed that female participants and those who scored higher in social desirability tended to use words that are scored as more affectively positive on the DAL. Socialization into gender roles is one process that is clearly believed to exert an impact on the expression, and even the experience of hostile sentiments and angry affect (Brody, 1985;Davidson and Hall, 1995). Sanctions against males for the expression of anger are believed to be less than those against females (Brody, 1985).…”

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

“…In our previous two studies, women's Polio scores were unrelated to trait and state self-reported hostility, but were positively related to trait and state Negative Affect (Davidson and Hall, 1995). Consequently, we concluded that Polio appeared to assess an experiential, or neurotic hostility dimension in women.…”

“…We also found that these same measures were related to lower resting SBP, nonhypertensive status, Antagonism, as well as Neuroticism, in women. However, it is important to note that the differential relation between Neuroticism and Polio was not significantly different between men and women in this study, as it was in our previous studies (Davidson and Hall, 1995). In our previous studies, Neuroticism was measured by a trait and state measure of Negative Affectivity, one of the many facets of Neuroticism (Watson and Pennebaker, 1989).…”

“…Previous theory and data suggest that these measures assess predominantly antagonistic hostility in men and that they predict heightened resting blood pressure levels as well as CHD. However, our previous work has suggested that SIderived hostility assesses a more neurotic form of hostility in women (Davidson and Hall, 1995). Specifically, our previous studies have demonstrated that Potential for Hostility is related to state and trait negative affectivity (or Neuroticism) in women but is not in men.…”

“…Once more, none of these samples examined this relation for women. Consequently, we hypothesize that, for women, Polio and its subscales will be less related to Antagonism, and more related to Neuroticism, as has been found previously (Davidson and Hall, 1995); the expected relation between Polio and resting blood pressure levels for women is uncertain.…”