Hostile interpretation biases are central to the development and maintenance of anger, yet have been inconsistently assessed. The Word Sentence Association Paradigm (WSAP) was used to develop a new measure of hostile interpretation biases, the WSAP-Hostility. Study 1 examined the factor structure and internal consistency of the WSAP-Hostility, as well as its relationship with trait anger. Study 2 provided convergent and divergent validity data by examining its associations with trait anger, aggression, depression, and anxiety. Study 3 examined the relationship between WSAP-Hostility and another measure of hostile interpretation biases, as well as another word sentence association measure, in a sample of community participants. Study 4 also used a sample of community participants to offer further evidence of convergent validity. Across the studies, the WSAP-Hostility demonstrated convergent and divergent validity and internal consistency, supporting its use as a measure of hostile interpretation biases.
AmirN.ProuvostC.KuckertzJ. M. (2012). Lack of benign interpretation bias in social anxiety disorder. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 41, 119-129. doi:10.1080/16506073.2012.662655
2.
BakerF. B. (2001). The basics of item response theory. ERIC clearinghouse on assessment and evaluation. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.
3.
BaronK. G.SmithT. W.ButnerJ.Nealey-MooreJ.HawkinsM. W.UchinoB. N. (2007). Hostility, anger, and marital adjustment: Concurrent and prospective associations with psychosocial vulnerability. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30, 1-10. doi:10.1007/s10865-006-9086-z
4.
BeardC.AmirN. (2008). A multi-session interpretation modification program: Changes in interpretation and social anxiety symptoms. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46, 1135-1141. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2008.05.012
5.
BentlerP. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
6.
BerkowitzL. (1993). Towards a general theory of anger and emotional aggression: Implications of the cognitive-neoassociationistic perspective for the analysis of anger and emotion. In WyerR. S.SrullT. K. (Eds.), Perspectives on anger and emotion (pp. 1-46). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
BettencourtB.TalleyA.BenjaminA. J.ValentineJ. (2006). Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 751-777. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.751
8.
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
9.
BrowneM. W.CudeckR. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980
11.
BussA. H.PerryM. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.63.3.452
12.
CoccaroE. F.NoblettK. L.McCloskeyM. S. (2009). Attributional and emotional responses to socially ambiguous cues: Validation of a new assessment of social/emotional information processing in healthy adults and impulsive aggressive patients. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43, 915-925. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2009.01.012
13.
CookW. W.MedleyD. M. (1954). Proposed hostility and pharisaic-virtue scales for the MMPI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38, 414-418. doi:10.1037/h0060667
14.
CougleJ. R.ZvolenskyM. J.HawkinsK. A. (2013). Delineating a relationship between problematic anger and cigarette smoking: A population-based study. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 15, 297-301. doi:10.1093/ntr/nts122
15.
DeffenbacherJ. L. (1993). General anger: Characteristics and clinical implications. Psicologia Conductual, 1, 49-67.
16.
DiGiuseppeR.TafrateR. C. (2003). Anger treatment for adults: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 70-84. doi:10.1093/clipsy.10.1.70
17.
DodgeK. A. (1980). Social cognition and children’s aggressive behavior. Child Development, 51, 162-170. doi:10.2307/1129603
18.
EckhardtC.NorlanderB.DeffenbacherJ. (2004). The assessment of anger and hostility: A critical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 17-43. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(02)00116-7
19.
EmbretsonS. E.ReiseS. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20.
EppsJ.KendallP. C. (1995). Hostile attribution bias in adults. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 159-178. doi:10.1007/BF02229692
21.
FloraD. B.CurranP. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9, 291-314. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466
22.
HambletonR. K.SwaminathanH.RogersH. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23.
HawkinsK. A.CougleJ. R. (2013a). A test of the unique and interactive roles of anger experience and expression in suicidality: Findings from a population-based study. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 201, 959-963. doi:10.1097/NMD.0000000000000041
24.
HawkinsK. A.CougleJ. R. (2013b). Effects of interpretation training on hostile attribution bias and reactivity to interpersonal insult. Behavior Therapy, 44, 479-488. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2013.04.005
25.
HawkinsK. A.HamesJ. L.RibeiroJ. D.SilvaC.JoinerT. E.CougleJ. R. (2014). An examination of the relationship between anger and suicide risk through the lens of the interpersonal theory of suicide. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 50, 59-65. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2013.12.005
26.
HawkinsK. A.MacateeR. J.GuthrieW.CougleJ. R. (2013). Concurrent and prospective relations between distress tolerance, life stressors, and anger. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 37, 434-445. doi:10.1007/s10608-012-9487-y
27.
HazebroekJ. F.HowellsK.DayA. (2001). Cognitive appraisals associated with high trait anger. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 31-45. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00007-6
28.
HofmannW.GawronskiB.GschwendnerT.LeH.SchmittM. (2005). A meta-analysis on the correlation between the implicit association test and explicit self-report measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1369-1385.
29.
KuckertzJ. M.AmirN.TobinA. C.NajmiS. (2013). Interpretation of ambiguity in individuals with obsessive-compulsive symptoms. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 37, 232-241. doi:10.1007/s10608-012-9478-z
30.
LittM. D.CooneyN. L.MorseP. (2000). Reactivity to alcohol-related stimuli in the laboratory and in the field: Predictors of craving in treated alcoholics. Addiction, 95, 889-900. doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2000.9568896.x
31.
LordF. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
32.
LordF. M.NovickM. R. (1968). Standard errors of measurement at different ability levels. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 239-243.
33.
LovibondP. F.LovibondS. H. (1995). The structure of emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33, 335-344. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-U
34.
MacateeR. J.CapronD. W.SchmidtN. B.CougleJ. R. (2013). An examination of low distress tolerance and life stressors as factors underlying obsessions. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 47, 1462-1468. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2013.06.019
35.
MillerT. Q.MarkidesK. S.ChiribogaD. A.RayL. A. (1995). A test of the psychosocial vulnerability and health behavior models of hostility: Results from an 11-year follow-up study of Mexican Americans. Psychosomatic Medicine, 57, 572-581.
36.
NguyenT. H.HanH. R.KimM. T.ChanK. S. (2014). An introduction to item response theory for patient-reported outcome measurement. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 7, 23-35. doi:10.1007/s40271-013-0041-0
37.
NovacoR. W. (2003). The Novaco Anger Scale and Provocation Inventory. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
38.
Orobio de CastroB.VeermanJ. W.KoopsW.BoschJ. D.MonshouwerH. J. (2002). Hostile attribution of intent and aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 73, 916-934. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00447
39.
SamejimaF. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores (Psychometric Monograph No. 17). Iowa City, IA: Psychometric Society.
40.
SmithT. W.GlazerK.RuizJ. M.GalloL. C. (2004). Hostility, anger, aggressiveness and coronary heart disease: An interpersonal perspective on personality, emotion, and health. Journal of Personality, 72, 1217-1270. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00296.x
41.
SpielbergerC. D. (1999). State Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2: Professional manual. Lutz, FL: PAR.
42.
StrongD. R.KahlerC. W.GreeneR. L.SchinkaJ. (2005). Isolating a primary dimension within the Cook–Medley hostility scale: A Rasch analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 21-33. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.08.011
43.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
44.
TafrateR. C.KassinoveH.DundinL. (2002). Anger episodes in high- and low-anger community adults. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 1573-1590. doi:10.1002/jclp.10076
45.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A. (1992). Affects separable and inseparable: On the hierarchical arrangement of the negative affects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 489-505. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.489
46.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063
47.
WenzelA.LystadC. (2005). Interpretation biases in angry and anxious individuals. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 1045-1054. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2004.02.009
48.
WilkowskiB. M.RobinsonM. D. (2010). The anatomy of anger: An integrative cognitive model of trait anger and reactive aggression. Journal of Personality, 78, 9-37. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00607.x
49.
WilliamsJ. E.PatonC. C.SieglerI. C.EigenbrodtM. L.NietoF. J.TyrolerH. A. (2000). Anger proneness predicts coronary heart disease risk: Prospective analysis from the atherosclerosis risk in communities (ARIC) study. Circulation, 101, 2034-2039. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.101.17.2034
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
