Components of Hostility and Verbal Communication of Emotion

Abstract

Understanding how hostility may affect health risk is predicated on articulating its core physiological, psychological and social features. Barefoot [Barefoot, J.C. (1992). Developments in the measurement of hostility. In: Friedman, H.S. (Ed.), Hostility , Coping and Health , pp. 13-31. American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C] emphasized the importance of cognitive, affective and behavioural components. The present study examined whether hostile people differ from non-hostile people on measures of emotional verbal behaviour. Forty participants were interviewed about an anger-eliciting experience. Interviews were transcribed and evaluated for the use of emotional language using the Dictionary of Affect in Language [Whissell, C.M. (1989). The dictionary of affect in language. In: Plutchik, R. and Kellerman, H. (Eds.), The Measurement of Emotions. Emotion : Theory, Research and Experience . Vol. 4. Academic, San Diego]. Independent judges read the transcripts and rated the amount of anger experienced by the participants. Participants' use of activation and evaluation words, subjective reports of anger and judges' ratings of their anger were examined as a function of gender, social desirability and hostility subcomponents: cynicism, hostile attributions, aggressive responding and hostile affect. Cognitive/attitudinal components were related to the use of more positive language in the anger interview, while behavioural and affective components were related to judged anger. The findings suggest that there are complex differences in emotional communication associated with hostility components. While supporting transactional models, they underscore the multidimensional nature of the affective repertoires associated with hostility. The findings suggest that further study of emotional behaviour associated with hostility components would be fruitful.