What Does the Ambiguous Intentions Hostility Questionnaire Really Measure? The Importance of Context in Evaluating Hostility Bias

Zajenkowska, Anna; Prusik, Monika; Szulawski, Michał

doi:10.1080/00223891.2018.1525389

Cited by 16 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The relationship between blame and anger appears to be reciprocal; with blame leading to anger, and anger leading to blame, which further increases anger and aggression (Quigley and Tedeschi 1996). Consistent with this view, trait anger and aggression have been shown to increase the inclination to make hostile attributions (Zajenkowska et al 2018).…”

Section: Happiness and Social Bondsmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Participants then used Likert scales to rate whether the other person/s performed the action on purpose (rated from 1 to 6, "definitely yes"), how angry it made them feel (rated from 1 to 5, "very angry"), and how much they blamed the other person/s (rated from 1 to 5, "very much"). In past research, the AIHQ has allowed researchers to consider hostile attributions across a range of interpersonal contexts and to explore the person x situation interactions that shape attribution biases and hostility (Zajenkowska et al 2018). Because attribution bias may be dependent on the context, cross-situational stability can be low (Shoda et al 1994).…”

Section: Hostile Attributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because attribution bias may be dependent on the context, cross-situational stability can be low (Shoda et al 1994). Factorial analysis has revealed that the AIHQ structure is not centered on particular questions measuring constructs of hostility, blame, and aggression, but rather on types of contexts or situations described by particular AIHQ scenarios (Zajenkowska et al, 2018). For this reason, it is recommended that AIHQ scenarios be considered independently as an indicator of hostility across various interpersonal contexts (Zajenkowska et al, 2018).…”

Section: Hostile Attributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it is also possible that low levels of happiness create an unpleasant emotional state that facilitates negative bias (Carretié et al 2001). As a result, unhappy people may be prone to interpret ambiguous situations in an unfavorable way, which may lead to experiencing negative emotions (e.g., anger) that further diminish happiness (Zajenkowska et al 2018). Finally, the presence of a cognitive bias consisting of a lack of interpersonal optimism may lead to more hostile attributions and lower levels of happiness such that the underlying lack of optimistic attributions is actually responsible for the connection between attributions and psychological well-being (Kleiman et al 2017).…”

Section: Happiness and Attributional Stylementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Happiness and Hostile Attributions in a Cross-Cultural Context: The Importance of Interdependence

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the association between happiness and a positive attitude towards other people is well documented, little is known about the attributional processes that characterize happy individuals when they are faced with negative social events. Because of the impact of culture on social relationships and self/other-construal, both attributional style and subjective happiness may be influenced by culture. To examine the interplay of factors that may be associated with happiness, we propose a model in which interdependence predicts happiness, but only for individuals who do not have an inclination to make hostile attributions about the others. In order to determine whether the identified patterns are culture specific or culturally universal, we have conducted our study in three culturally diverse countries: the United States, Poland and Japan (N = 707). We expected that level of happiness would be linked to interdependent self, and that it would be also associated with lower levels of hostile attributions. We also predicted an interaction between levels of interdependent self and hostile attributions in explaining level of happiness. Results mostly confirmed our predictions and remained consistent across all studied countries. We conclude with emphasis on the importance of embracing both negative and positive aspects of experience when studying wellbeing, especially in a cross-cultural context.

show abstract

Section: Happiness and Social Bondsmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Hostile Attributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Hostile Attributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Happiness and Attributional Stylementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Happiness and Hostile Attributions in a Cross-Cultural Context: The Importance of Interdependence

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On one hand, ascribing intentionality and blame to other people is critical in predicting hostile attribution (Combs et al, 2007; Epps & Kendall, 1995); on the other hand, understanding how they specifically relate to angry feelings is important, as anger very often leads to aggressive behaviour, especially in violent individuals. As hostility bias relates to aggressive and violent behaviour, inmates are an important group for conducting relevant research (Tuente et al, 2019; Zajenkowska, Prusik, & Szulawski, 2018).…”

Section: Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Hostile attribution bias among offenders and non‐offenders: Making social information processing more adequate

Zajenkowska

Prusik

Jasielska

et al. 2020

Community & Applied Soc Psy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exploring the relationships between variables that predict hostile attributions is essential for understanding aggressive behaviours and for enabling the development of suitable aggression‐reduction interventions. The aim of this series of two studies was to investigate how ascribing intentionality and blame to other people are critical in predicting hostile attribution. In Study 1 (general sample: N = 163, 63.8% females; inmates: N = 109 people, 78.9% females), we hypothesized that people that are sensitive to provocation declare higher levels of anger and that this is serially mediated by perceived intentionality of the act and perceived blame of the harm‐doer. The results confirmed these assumptions. In Study 2, the participants took part in a 3‐month psycho‐educational training that included mentalization elements. We hypothesized that the level of hostile attributions among inmates (N = 8, females) would be lower after the training. Changes in the inmates' attributions were observed after a qualitative analysis of the results. This finding achieved the study's aim of demonstrating how such theoretical assumptions can be practically implemented.

show abstract

Reduced attention toward faces, intentionality and blame ascription in violent offenders and community‐based adults: Evidence from an eye‐tracking study

Zajenkowska

Bodecka

Duda

et al. 2022

Aggressive Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People typically have a strong bias in attention toward faces to help them understand social interactions. Nonetheless some people, like incarcerated offenders and psychopaths, exhibit deficits in "face reading," which may impair their interpretations, especially in case of attribution allocation in harmful events. In these cases, the ascription of intentionality is key in understanding the allocation of blame and structuring social information processing. Consequently, in the current study, in addition to typically studied intentionality and blame ascription levels (subfactors of hostile attributions), we also propose a new indicator of hostile attributions: intentionality/blame isomorphism, indicating reduced differentiation between those two factors. Violent prison inmates (N = 63) and community-based adults without previous history of incarceration (N = 63) took part in an eye-tracking study. In line with our hypotheses, offenders exhibited reduced attention orienting to faces as well as greater intentionality/blame isomorphism. In the case of both groups, people looked longer at the faces of the harm doer compared with the harm receiver.Additionally, greater intentionality/blame isomorphism predicted reduced attention to faces; however, when group status was included in the model, it became the only significant predictor of the attention to faces. Future studies should examine the origins of these gaze and attribution patterns and investigate consequences related to social perception and interactions of people prone to violence.

show abstract

What Does the Ambiguous Intentions Hostility Questionnaire Really Measure? The Importance of Context in Evaluating Hostility Bias

Cited by 16 publications

References 32 publications

Happiness and Hostile Attributions in a Cross-Cultural Context: The Importance of Interdependence

Happiness and Hostile Attributions in a Cross-Cultural Context: The Importance of Interdependence

Hostile attribution bias among offenders and non‐offenders: Making social information processing more adequate

Reduced attention toward faces, intentionality and blame ascription in violent offenders and community‐based adults: Evidence from an eye‐tracking study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About