CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 76Psychological Testing and AssessmentEmotions and Moral BehaviorAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Potential hostility and dimensions of anger.

Musante, Linda, MacDougall, James M., Dembroski, Theodore M., Costa, Paul T.·1989·Health Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0278-6133.8.3.343
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0278-6133.8.3.343

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Musante, L., MacDougall, J. M., Dembroski, T. M., & Costa, P. T.
Affiliations
University of Tampa (US)
ORCID
Venue
Health Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1989
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
343-354
ISSN
  • 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-7810
DOI
10.1037/0278-6133.8.3.343
OpenAlex
W1995936259
Cited by
76
References
0
Citations by year
2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
6.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Heart Association
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL-22809)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
hostility, construct validity, Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory, anger expression, physical assault, suspicion, guilt, coronary artery disease, Type A behavior pattern
MeSH terms
Adult, Aggression, Anger, Arousal, Coronary Disease, Hostility, Humans, Male, Personality Tests, Psychometrics, Risk Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review