Teorias De La Hostilidad

HTML Full Text
Hostility and Perceptions of Support in Ambiguous Social Interactions

Contents

Method
Participants
Procedure
Materials
Analyses Plan
Results
Discussion
References
Listen
By: Ana-Maria Vranceanu
Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
Linda C. Gallo
Department of Psychiatry, San Diego State University,San Diego, CA, USA
Laura M. Bogart
RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA
Acknowledgement: Ana-Maria Vranceanu and Dr. Bogart were at Kent State University when these data were collected. Dr. Gallo was supported by NIMH grant MH6610101 during article preparation.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Linda C. Gallo, SDSU/UCSD Joint Doctoral Program in ClinicalPsychology, San Diego State University, 6363 Alvarado Ct., Suite 103, San Diego, CA 92120 USA Phone: +1 619 594-6780. Electronic Mail may be sent to: lcgallo@sciences.sdsu.edu.
Individuals high in trait hostility experience negative health outcomes, including increased risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and premature mortality from all causes ( Miller, Smith, Turner, Guijarro, & Hallet,1996; Smith, Ruiz, Glazer, & Gallo, 2004). The psychosocial vulnerability hypothesis ( Smith, 1992) posits that hostility may, in part, affect health indirectly through its association with social functioning, by increasing interpersonal conflict and social stress, and decreasing social support ( Gallo & Smith, 1999; Hardy & Smith, 1988; Houston & Kelly, 1989; O'Neil & Emery, 2002; Smith & Fromm,1995). However, the origin of the association between hostility and social support is unclear. The current paper reports on a study in which we attempted to isolate the impact of hostility on social information processing by relating scores on a measure of trait hostility to ratings of a series of videotaped, ambiguously supportive social interactions.
Hostility is a broad, multifaceted constructthat includes interrelated emotional (e.g., anger), cognitive (e.g., trait hostility), and behavioral (e.g., aggression) components ( Smith et al., 2004). The current study focused on trait hostility, the cognitive component of this construct, which should be most likely to impact social support judgments. Trait hostility represents a set of beliefs that others are a source of frustration andaggression ( Smith, 1992, 1994). Thus, individuals high in trait hostility tend to be cynical, mistrustful, and suspicious, and they often experience bitterness and resentment ( Buss & Perry, 1992).
The association between trait hostility and social support may be interpreted from two perspectives. First, because hostile persons are suspicious and attribute hostile intent to others, they may exhibit apattern of social interactions involving antagonistic and aggressive actions ( Gallo & Smith, 1998; Smith, 1994). Such behaviors are likely to be reciprocated by others, leading to increased interpersonal conflict and undermining social support. Hence, hostile individuals' reports of low social support and high social conflict may be veridical. This interpretation is supported, for example, bystudies showing a prospective association between hostility and interpersonal problems in close relationships ( Miller, Smith, Turner, Guijarro, & Hallet, 1996; Newton & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1995; Siegler et al., 2003).
Individuals high in trait hostility may also posses a cognitive structure, or schema, that leads to a negative bias in their processing of social information ( Allred & Smith, 1991;Contrada, & O'Leary, 1990; Newton, Kiecolt-Glaser, & Malerkey, 1995). From this perspective hostility facilitates selective attention to and processing of negative information about others, as well as negative predictions about others' behavior ( Allred & Smith, 1991; Collins & Loftus, 1975; Craik & Lochart, 1972; Flory, Matthews, & Owens, 1998; Ingram, 1984). Support for the existence of a social...