Journal of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 1–10 | Cite as

Hostility, Anger, and Marital Adjustment: Concurrent and Prospective Associations with Psychosocial Vulnerability

  • Kelly Glazer Baron
  • Timothy W. SmithEmail author
  • Jonathan Butner
  • Jill Nealey-Moore
  • Melissa W. Hawkins
  • Bert N. Uchino

Hostility may contribute to risk for disease through psychosocial vulnerability, including the erosion of the quality of close relationships. This study examined hostility, anger, concurrent ratings of the relationship, and change in marital adjustment over 18 months in 122 married couples. Wives’ and husbands’ hostility and anger were related to concurrent ratings of marital adjustment and conflict. In prospective analyses, wives’ but not husbands’ hostility and anger were related to change in marital adjustment. In hierarchical regression and SEM models wives’ anger was a unique predictor of both wives’ and husbands’ change in marital adjustment. The association between wives’ anger and change in husbands’ marital satisfaction was mediated by husbands’ ratings of conflict in the marriage. These results support the role of hostility and anger in the development of psychosocial vulnerability, but also suggest an asymmetry in the effects of wives’ and husbands’ trait anger and hostility on marital adjustment.


hostility anger marital adjustment psychosocial vulnerability 


  1. Baucom, D. H., Shoham, V., Mueser, K. T., et al. (1998). Empirically supported couple and family interventions for marital distress and adult mental health problems. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 66(1): 53–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barefoot, J. C., Dodge, K. A., Peterson, B. L., et al. (1989). The Cook-Medley Hostility scale: Item content and ability to predict survival. Psychosom. Med. 51(1): 46–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, R. M., and Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 35(6): 1173–1182.Google Scholar
  4. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indicies in structural models. Psych. Bull. 107(2): 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Browne, M. W., and Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K. A., and Long, J. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 136–162Google Scholar
  6. Bushman, B. J., Cooper, H. M., and Lemke, K. M. (1991). Meta-analysis of factor analyses: An illustration using the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory. Pers. Soc. Psych. Bull. 17(3): 344–349.Google Scholar
  7. Buss, A. H., and Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. J. Consult. Psychol. 21: 343–349.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buss, A. H., and Perry, M. (1982). The aggression questionnaire. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 63: 452–459.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, W. W., and Medley, D. M. (1954). Proposed hostility and pharisaic virtue scales for the MMPI. J. App. Psychol. 38: 414–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crane, D. R., Allgood, S. M., and Larson, J. H. (1990). Assessing marital quality with distressed and nondistressed couples: A comparison and equivalency table for three frequently used measures. J. Marriage Fam. 52(1): 87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freeston, M. H., and Pléchaty, M. (1997). Reconsiderations of the locke-wallace marital adjustment test: Is it still relevant for the 1990s? Psych. Rep. 81(2): 419–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gallo, L. C., and Smith, T. W. (1998). Construct validation of health-relevant personality traits: Interpersonal circumplex and five-factor model analyses of the Aggression Questionnaire. Intern. J. Beh. Med. 5: 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? Earlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  14. Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., et al. (1998). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. J. Marriage Fam. 60(1): 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harris, J. A. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the aggression questionnaire. Beh. Res. Ther. 33(8): 991–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hart, K. E. (1999). Cynical hostility and deficiencies in functional support: The moderating role of gender in psychosocial vulnerability to disease. Pers. Ind. Diff. 27: 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Houston, B. K., and Kelly, K. E. (1989). Hostility in employed women: Relation to work and marital experiences, social support, stress, and anger expression. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 15(2): 175–182.Google Scholar
  18. Hu, L., and Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 76–99.Google Scholar
  19. Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., and Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychol. Bull. 127: 472–503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krokoff, L. J. (1989). Predictive validation of a telephone version of the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test. J. Marriage Fam. 51(3): 767–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Locke, H. J., and Wallace, E. M. (1959). Short marital adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage Fam. Living 21: 251–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., and Dwyer, J. H. (1995). A simulation study of mediated effect measures. Multivariate. Behav. Res. 30(1): 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller, T. Q., Marksides, K. S., Chiriboga, D. A., et al. (1995). A test of the psychosocial vulnerability and health behavior models of hostility: Results from an 11-year follow-up study of Mexican Americans. Psychosom. Med. 57: 572–581.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller, T. Q., Smith, T. W., Turner, C. W., et al. (1995). A meta-analytic review of research on hostility and physical health. Psychol. Bull. 119: 322–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Musante, L., MacDougall, J. M., Dembroski, T. M., et al. (1989). Potential hostility and dimensions of anger. Health Psychol. 8(3): 343–354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Muthén, L. K., and Muthén, B. O. (2001). Mplus user’s guide. (2nd edn.). Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  27. Newton, T. L., and Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (1995). Hostility and erosion of marital quality during early marriage. J. Behav. Med. 18: 601–619.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Neil, J. N., and Emery, C. F. (2002). Psychosocial vulnerability, hostility, and family history of coronary heart disease among male and female college students. Int. J. Beh. Med. 9: 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pierce, G. R., Saronson, I. G., and Saronson, B. R. (1991). General and relationship-based perceptions of social support: Are two constructs better than one? J. Per. Soc. Psychol. 61(6): 1028–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pierce, G. R., Sarason, I. G., and Sarason, B. R. (1997). Assessing the quality of personal relationships. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 14(3): 339–356.Google Scholar
  31. Ruiz, J. M., Smith, T. W., and Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Distinguishing narcissism and hostility: Similarities and differences in interpersonal circumplex and five-factor correlates. J. Pers. Ass. 76(3): 537–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roberts, L. J., and Krokoff, J. L. (1990). A time-series analysis of withdrawal, hostility, and displeasure in satisfied and dissatisfied marriages. J. Mar. Fam. 52(1): 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Satorra, A., and Bentler, P. M. (1988). Scaling corrections for chi-square statistics in covariance structure analysis. ASA Proceedings of the Business and Economic Section, pp. 308–313.Google Scholar
  34. Schafer, J. L., and Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychol. Meth. 7(2): 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith, T. W. (1992). Hostility and Health: Current status of a psychosomatic hypothesis. Health Psychol. 11: 139–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith, T. W. (1994). Concepts and methods in the study of anger, hostility, and health. In Siegman, A. W., and Smith, T. W. (Eds.), Anger, hostility and the heart. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 23–42.Google Scholar
  37. Smith, T. W., and Gallo, L. C. (1999). Hostility and cardiovascular reactivity during marital interaction. Psychosom. Med. 61: 436–445.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, T. W., Glazer, K., Ruiz, J. M., and Gallo, L. C. (2004). Hostility, anger, aggressiveness and coronary heart disease: An interpersonal perspective on personality, emotion, and health. J. Pers. 72: 1217–1270.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith, T. W., Nealey-Moore, J., Uchino, B., et al. (2003). Hostility, anger, and cardiovascular reactivity during marital interaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychosomatic Society, Phoenix, AZ March 5–8, 2003.Google Scholar
  40. Smith, T. W., Pope, M. K., Sanders, J. D., et al. (1988). Cynical hostility at home and work: Psychosocial vulnerability across domains. J. Res. Pers. 22: 525–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith, T. W., and Ruiz, J. M. (2002). Psychosocial influences on the development and course of coronary heart disease: Current status and implications for research and practice. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 70(3): 548–568.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Uchino, B. N. (2004). Social support and physical health outcomes; Understanding the health consequences of our relationships. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  43. Uchino, B. N., Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. W., and Bloor, L. (2004). Heterogeneity in social networks: A comparison of different models linking relationships to psychological outcomes. J. Soc. Clin. Psych. 23: 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kelly Glazer Baron
    • 1
  • Timothy W. Smith
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jonathan Butner
    • 1
  • Jill Nealey-Moore
    • 1
  • Melissa W. Hawkins
    • 1
  • Bert N. Uchino
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations